sda2.jpg

November 28, 2006

Forbidden

mc03.jpg

Read the story here. (Video, too.)

(h/t Stop The ACLU)

Posted by Kate at November 28, 2006 4:00 PM
Comments

At each and every opportunity, an intrepid band of American Catholics* should simply dispose of the pieces concealing the cross.

They'll eventually get fed up replacing it.

* C'mon Hispanic-Americans: you outnumber the Godless buggers!

Posted by: JJM at November 28, 2006 4:13 PM

Thank you Kate.

Posted by: Jay at November 28, 2006 4:19 PM

That is a great video. And sadly, it has a big ring of truth in it. If this was a Navaho, Budist or Muslim marker we wouldn't even be discussing this.

As an aside, did the Canadian Forces padres really go through and get rid of their capbadge? I recall the news item but cannot remember if they did do it.

Posted by: Texas Canuck at November 28, 2006 4:28 PM

And I keep feeding myself the illusion that America is our last hope. I need that illusion.

Posted by: felis corpulentis at November 28, 2006 4:33 PM

So how long is that big cross atop Mont Royal gonna last?

Posted by: Bob at November 28, 2006 4:44 PM

Things like this are happening only because we are letting them happen.

It may take time to go the extra mile, inch by inch, but we need to put those people, who make these decisions for us, out of a job.

Posted by: Yoop at November 28, 2006 4:46 PM

Every time something like this happens I move a little closer to being a Catholic instead of a former Catholic.

Posted by: Silicon Valley Jim at November 28, 2006 5:00 PM

The
A nti
C hristian
L itigation
U nion

Strikes again!

Posted by: Doug at November 28, 2006 5:30 PM

We're keeping your seat in the pew warm for you, Silicon Valley Jim. Hell - they did it for me.

Posted by: rick mcginnis at November 28, 2006 5:46 PM

Clearly, very clearly...

The ACLU is a hate group. They hate Christians.

Who else but Christians do they ever go after?

Do they ever sue to have an Islamic Crescent removed from anything?

Do they ever sue to ban the carrying of the Kirpan dagger by Sikhs? Ban their turbans?

Do they ever sue to make sure Muslim women have their faces visible at all times?

Do they ever sue to ban gay parades?

Do they ever sue to ban public nudity and treasonous picket signs in leftist "demonstrations"?

Clearly the ACLU is a hate group. Time to call it exactly that.

Is this too much? Or is it not enough?

Have I made the point strongly enough?

Posted by: The Canadian Sentinel at November 28, 2006 6:24 PM

“The City Council crushed the crèche."

ACLU (Anti Christian Liberties Union) at it again, banning yet another nativity

Thomas More Law Center ^ | 11-21-2006 | Thomas More
Berkley, Michigan City Council Caves In To ACLU Threat And Removes Decades-Old Nativity Display Tue, Nov 21, 2006 ANN ARBOR, MI –

The Berkley, Michigan City Council last night voted 6-to-1 to no longer display a Nativity scene on city property.

The City caved in to an ACLU threat of a lawsuit if they continued their decades-old Nativity display.

Some residents claim that the Nativity display had been on city property for more than 60 years. Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “The City Council crushed the crèche. Despite all of its rationalizing last night,...-
3w.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1745405/posts

Posted by: maz2 at November 28, 2006 6:29 PM

"God will not be mocked."

That ugly cover-up cannot conceal the Christian message of the cross, "which is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1: 18).

A mere piece of plywood cannot blunt or negate God's power.

I like the idea of individuals living near the site removing the plywood, again, and again, and again. And I feel nothing but contempt for the ACLU and the lawyers and judges who used the law, in this case an ass, to suppress the freedom of religion and freedom of expression of the people who erected the cross to commemorate their fallen loved ones.

As Texas Canuck says, "If this was a Navaho, Buddhist, or Muslim marker we wouldn't even be discussing this." Christians need to stand up for their rights, the rights established by Judeo-Christian values, which have guaranteed the rights of other groups to freely express their religious beliefs.

How ironic, and more than a little diabolic, that the Judeo-Christian faith, whose values are the foundation of human rights in the West, has been censored while other faiths are free to express their beliefs unhindered.


Posted by: 'been around the block at November 28, 2006 6:34 PM

We're keeping your seat in the pew warm for you, Silicon Valley Jim.

I truly appreciate that.

Posted by: Silicon Valley Jim at November 28, 2006 6:37 PM

This is outrageous and I'm not even religious. As I understand it, it is a memorial to the fallen in WWI, not a symbol of someones religion. The ACLU is just another symbol of repression in a so called free country. I agree, keep tearing it down or paint the cross on the plywood and keep doing it until some sort of sanity returns to North America. As the old saying goes "I did nothing because they didn't come for me and when it was my turn it was too late to resist". We are being overrun one freedom at a time! Time to just say "NO".

Posted by: capndan at November 28, 2006 6:52 PM

Thanks for the link and for the visits of your readers.

Posted by: ArrMatey at November 28, 2006 6:54 PM

Wow Forest Gump was right "Stupid is, as stupid does"

Like most ideologically driven rights movements, the ACLU has out-lived its usefulness by about a decade or so. As a completely directionless organization, it desperately seeks out 'any' cause that will prove its usefulness to those that bankroll it.

Posted by: missing link at November 28, 2006 7:37 PM

This is desecration of a religious symbol.

Why is this ok but cartoons of Mohammed aren't?

And what did the ACLU say about when the Taliban blew up that Buddhist statue?

The ACLU will go to the middle of a desert to censor Christianity. This is bizarre... extreme. The lengths they'll go to... hmm... is the ACLU threatened by Christianity in particular? Who are the ACLU really? They sure as hell have nothing at all to do with "civil liberties"... it's a code phrase for their true agenda.

Posted by: The Canadian Sentinel at November 28, 2006 7:57 PM

Tell me where it is .....I'll go take that damned plywood off.

Posted by: OMMAG at November 28, 2006 8:31 PM

take heart...what is in the heart cannot be boarded up!

Also and welcoming thought, what the ALCU meant for evil, God will turn it for good.

Posted by: tomax7 at November 28, 2006 8:43 PM

tomax7: Amen, brother!

Posted by: 'been around the block at November 28, 2006 9:53 PM

Man, this ole' world needs a serious f***ing reality check. I'm with ONMAG on this one. Next time I'm in the vicinity (or within about 500 miles) I'm going to find this cross and take down the plywood.

Catch me if you can ACLU.

And my last acronym will be FUACLU.

Cheers,
Brian

Posted by: Brian M. at November 28, 2006 11:01 PM

Someone should, as an act of free speech, paint a cross on the covering -- then the ACLU would be forced to defend it. Surely if you can burn an American flag as an act of free speech you can paint two dissecting lines on a covering.

Posted by: Richard Ball at November 28, 2006 11:05 PM

Make that "intersecting", not "dissecting". It's after midnight here in PEI.

Posted by: Richard Ball at November 28, 2006 11:08 PM

If the cross was on private property, then you have a problem with the ACLU.

If the cross was on public property, then who cares what the ACLU does? To expect that un-owned property will be used in some kind of rational, equitable way rather unrealistic. Think of the ACLU as a bunch of ideological goats who enjoy free range over the huge percentage of the USA's land and other assets which are owned by the government. If you don't want to see your country turned into a wasteland, then privatize the assets and see how much better property is managed by private owners. Best to do it before any crosses are raised or oil is discovered. It's hard to get something away from a goat once he's got his teeth into it.

Graze some more on BLM and the Tragedy of the Commons.

Posted by: Justzumgai at November 28, 2006 11:13 PM

The ACLU, as a hate group, should be banned, not asskissed. What's wrong with all the judges who keep agreeing with these Christ haters?

Geez...

Someone should put plywood on the ACLU symbol! The ACLU clearly offends the sensitivities of millions... isn't it, therefore, in the illogic of the ACLU, a civil right being violated by the visibility of the ACLU?

Yep... the ACLU is offending me. It is violating my civil rights.

Who is going to sue to have the ACLU stomped upon?

"Civil Rights Union" my ass.

Posted by: The Canadian Sentinel at November 29, 2006 4:02 AM

As usual, what Rick said: come on back Jim.

Great ideas here. Wish there was a road trip or something that could be organized to fix this. Next stop: the proposed United 93 memorial with trees planted in the shape of... a strangely Muslim-looking crescent! I seem to remember learning in school that wood was flammable...

Seriously: doesn't this look like a still from a post-apocalyptic movie? "Damn you lousy lawyers!"? Except the future is now.

Posted by: kathy Shaidle at November 29, 2006 5:54 AM

That God damned Constitution! Damn James Madison!

Posted by: Keith at November 29, 2006 9:02 AM

As we know here in Canada, as soon as someone describes himself as a "devout Catholic", he's planning to do something heretical.

Posted by: Owen at November 29, 2006 9:09 AM

I'm all for a secular state but I'd have to agree that this was a bit silly.

Posted by: Jose at November 29, 2006 9:54 AM

"Gottes Mühlen mahlen langsam, mahlen aber trefflich klein."

Posted by: JJM at November 29, 2006 1:38 PM

Lets see if I get this right.

The cross is on Federal land. This has been ruled to violate "the constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state". It's been covered up, I assume to be in compliance. And you complain??

Whatever happened to Conservatives being for law and order? The thing was in violation of the constitution, according to the judgement. It was judged to be in violation of the consitution?
This means nothing to you?

Here's an interesting experiment. If that cross had be a Islamic crescent instead, and the same thing happened...would any of you be this outspoken?

Posted by: Murray Rennie at November 29, 2006 2:49 PM

"It was judged to be in violation of the consitution?
This means nothing to you?"

The judgment is crap. Perhaps you should read the amendment again. Allowing a religious symbol to be placed on federal ground is hardly the establishment of a state religion.

Posted by: Defense Guy at November 29, 2006 3:11 PM

C'mon, Murray Rennie. Your comments reveal your ignorance.

There's also freedom of expression and freedom of religion in the U.S.. Putting up a cross in the desert is no threat whatsoever to the state and, surely, the U.S. citizens who constructed it are free to express their faith in the U.S. of A.

I suspect, as Texas Canuck pointed out in an earlier post, that "If this was a Navaho, Buddhist or Muslim marker we wouldn't even be discussing this." The ACLU would almost certainly not have prosecuted any other religious group, whereas it's open season on Christianity all over the liberal landscape.

Do your homework, Mr. Rennie.

Posted by: 'been around the block at November 29, 2006 5:08 PM

A new movie about the nativity story has been banned from being shown at a "Christmas" festival in Chicago. It makes me wonder why they even have a Christmas festival if a movie about the meaning of Christmas is banned. I'm sure the ACLU is behind this; what a bunch of kill joys.

If Kate will permit, here is a link to the story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061128/ap_on_re_us/christmas_movie_snub

Posted by: Harry at November 29, 2006 6:33 PM

Jim-- if you're looking to stick your toe back in the water, there are some very good priests at Our Lady of Peace in Santa Clara. BIG statue of Our Lady overlooking 101. Can't miss it. There's an Irish priest named Fr. Paul there who's quite personable...

Posted by: Margaret at November 30, 2006 3:19 AM

C'mon, Murray Rennie. Your comments reveal your ignorance.

-------------------------------------------

And how would this be, Mr "not been around the block enough"

-------------------------------------------

There's also freedom of expression and freedom of religion in the U.S.. Putting up a cross in the desert is no threat whatsoever to the state and, surely, the U.S. citizens who constructed it are free to express their faith in the U.S. of A.

------------------------------

And they do have this freedom. I never disputed that.

But this cross was on FEDERAL LAND, giving the IMPRESSION the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was showing PREFERENCE to a PARTICULAR RELIGION.

Hope the caps help you understand this.

------------------------------

I suspect, as Texas Canuck pointed out in an earlier post, that "If this was a Navaho, Buddhist or Muslim marker we wouldn't even be discussing this." The ACLU would almost certainly not have prosecuted any other religious group, whereas it's open season on Christianity all over the liberal landscape.

--------------------------------------

I suspect Texas Canuck has no evidence for this STACLU inspired assertion.

How many American Government's (state, Federal, municiple) have trid to display Islamic, Buddhist, Navajo, etc. on Federal land IN THE SAME WAY THAT CHRISTIAN SYMBOLS SHOW UP?

Could the answer be...far from an "attack on Christianity", they just have not had the chance yet?

--------------------------------------

Do your homework, Mr. Rennie.

--------------------------------

I suggest that you do YOUR homework, Mr. "can't be bothered to go around the block"

Please go to http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/
and start doing your homework.


As well, I noticed you did not answer my question...

If that cross had be a Islamic crescent instead, and the same thing happened...would any of you be this outspoken?

Posted by: Murray Rennie at November 30, 2006 2:31 PM

sarge here. good lord. murray rennie it must be tough comin' here and trying to set these strange angry and ooh so very thick people straight on the simple concepts of seperation of church and state in the US of A...render unto cesaer what is cesear's...blah blah blah. So,tell the old sarge rennie, doncha feel just like one of those chain gang prisoners what digs holes all day in the hot sun only to find them holes all filled back in and needin' re diggin' the very next day?

and to you kanukistani haters of america and it's sacred constitution...try a googler search before ye comment on such as you don't understand...then ya would know what does happen when its a muslim or wiccan or whatever symbol set upon federal land...next yall be tellin sarge how they done striped all the crosses out of Arlington National War Cemetary or somethin equally moronic.

Posted by: sarge at November 30, 2006 3:27 PM

DRUDGE has a story about a group of Christian students planning a nativity scene with GARY AND JOSEPH AND no baby Jesus. Wonders if the ACLU will object. My suggestion is they put a baby mohammed in the stable, or perhaps a baby devil.
It is their form of protesting the ACLU.

Posted by: maryT at December 1, 2006 1:28 AM

Perhaps, MaryT, you can actually provide a link to this story. I've searched the Drudgery report and have not found it.


And even if such as scene existed, is it on PUBLIC LAND? If it's on private land...who cares. Most likely not the ACLU.

Posted by: Murray Rennie at December 1, 2006 9:40 AM
Site
Meter