Posted on 05/21/2005 6:31:59 AM PDT by bulldozer
ACLU, atheist in 16-year battle to remove it
The San Diego City Council voted this week to allow voters to decide the fate of the historic Mt. Soledad Cross overlooking the Pacific Ocean in La Jolla.
The vote represented the newest chapter in a long line of legal battles to remove the cross, led by ACLU attorney James McElroy, who represents an atheist seeking to remove the Christian symbol from public lands.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Like it is going to matter how the people vote. There will be some liberal activist Judge who will order it removed anyhow.
"some liberal activist Judge who will order it removed anyhow."
That may end up being a good thing. Nothing irritates the public more than seeing their decisions tossed aside.
It makes no difference what the people want, it is what the ACLU wants that counts. If they (ACLU) don't get it, they will sue and win.
You might be right, atleast I hope the people have the stomach to fight it.
So if the ACLU wins will they wrap the cross in burlap, soak it in gasoline and burn it? Hmmmm.
And replace it with the Koran!
. . . and the Communiists will take over the country without ever firing a gun. They have been eroding our democracy and our way of life for over 50 years.
Which as you well know, is burn our flag and they have had a lot of success in doing it.
The Buddhist statue blown up by the Taliban was a religious symbol on public land. The ACLU no doubt applauded that 'legal and constitutional' act.
Ahhh, the power of ONE.
Pathetic crap on the weakening of America....Kiss my a@# ACLU!
1) "As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law makers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view. It is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!"
2) "As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door."
3) "As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments!"
and so on.
So, why isn't the ACLU attacking these "outrages"? Guess it's easier, and more lucrative, to pick on the locals.
What is particularly aggravating is that the ACLU is getting paid by the taxpayers for this. That and the fact that our elected representatives immediately assume the fetal position when the ACLU sues them over some supposed civil rights violation instead of telling them to take a hike.
Pessamism is so unbecoming (to spin George Will) I agree some jackass Judge will find an excuse to declare the will
of the people unlawful--BUT remember we are a Big Country.
And it will take time for enough of US to get peeved enough we demand of all our mere politicians that we have strict constructionist judges on the Judiciary and even those
wacked out globalists that claim we have a "living Constitution "And that the language and original intent don't mean nothin' have admitted the COnstitution does Say
"We the people"Not "we the activist Judiciary."And if the
independent Judiciary makes bad law. If th elaw is invalid--
Ignore it.
The ACLU isnt attacking these images on the COurt Building -because they still control a majority of the blind Judges
who sit in the shadow of those deliberate symbols. IF the ACLU can lead the Court it doesn't matter what is displayed
all around them. In the Soviet system they allowed Christian churches and wrote into their Constitution a
separation of the church form the state and state from the
school. And in practice ,under the Communist system the ACLU
seeks to maintain , if a church is destroyed it is of little consequence.And little will be done.If the Government is questioned the citizen must be destroyed/
re-educated which is the same idea.
I am offended at city efforts to push this man's religion of "no god" on me.
Freedom OF religion does not mean freedom FROM religion.
Atheism is a belief in "no god". Agnosticism is the position of those who say "don't know". Atheists have faith in their position.
Yeah, then the public promptly forgets about it. They have short memories.
Needs to be said over and over and over.........
In 1976, Congress passed the Civil Rights Attorneys Fee Awards Act, which was designed to encourage private lawyers to take on suits to protect civil and constitutional rights. The law provides that judges can order federal and state governments to pay legal fees to private lawyers who sued the government and won. The result has been a flood of civil rights cases in federal court. From The New American Feb. 2, 1987
It's an outrage that US law, passed during the Watergate era, allows the ACLU to collect attorney's fees for makework----Christian-hatng lawsuits it itself launches.
That means "values voters" have been footing the bill for the ACLU's launching a juggernaut to remove Ten Commandments images, Christmas creches and Christmas carols, taking God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and because they claim they have a civil right not to see the Ten Commandments, a civil right not to hear the word “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, not to see a creche of the Baby Jesus, not to hear Christmas carols. The ACLU has collected a huge amount of our tax dollars in this left-handed fundraiser for the ACLU.
FReepers can silence the ACLU with a bit of activism. We need to insist our Congressmen repeal this abusive law that allows the ACLU to get rich on harassing Christian America. Congress must repeal laws enabling the ACLU's Christian-hating activities. Cut off the ACLU's funds and watch them disappear. Here's what we can do.
Under the aegis of the ACLU's Foundation---worth some $135 million---any number of financial travesties can be hidden. The IRS should determine whether the ACLU is properly accounting for all its tax-funded activities, whether it is inflating legal costs, and whether it is using tax dollars for the purposes stated. We need to know whether the ACLU is engaged in Enron-style accounting and spending practices.
REFERENCE SOURCE FOR ARGUING REPEAL TO CONGRESS
Apparently, when Congress contemplated the fee-shifting bill three decades ago, it never conceived that 42 U.S.C. §1988 would be used to secure fees in esoteric battles over the meaning of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
The statute gives a court "discretion" to award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in civil rights cases.
Study of the legislative history of the statute reveals that Congress intended this statute to apply to civil rights abuses, including certain race and sex discrimination cases, but not to arguments about whether Judge Roy Moore is allowed to display the Ten Commandments in the Alabama courthouse.
During the deliberations on the bill, the Senate penned that "in many cases arising under our civil rights laws, the citizen who must sue to enforce the law has little or no money with which to hire a lawyer."[6] In the recent First Amendment lawsuits filed by the ACLU, the tables are turned.
Small school districts and municipalities can either defend lawsuits and risk paying the ACLU's attorneys' fees if they lose, or they can voluntarily submit to the ACLU's view of the Constitution.
Even if lawsuits over the establishment clause somehow fall within 42 U.S.C. §1988, the statute empowers courts with nothing more than "discretion" to award fees.
In these cases, one would expect courts to withhold awarding fees. Since this is not happening, Congress must take immediate action to clarify 42 U.S.C. §1988 to explicitly exclude lawsuits related to the acknowledgement of God.
NOTE: In order to spread this message far and wide, you may have already received it. Sorry about that.
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.