The Anti-Christian Lefty Union Strikes out at the Cross!!!!

ACLU targets the Cross... someone should target them...

from JoeUser Forums
Despite passionate pleas from an overflow crowd of 2,000, Los Angeles County's Board of Supervisors refused Tuesday to back down on its decision to remove a tiny Christian cross on the official seal because of a legal threat from the ACLU.
The 3-2 vote came only hours after a private legal foundation filed a lawsuit against the county in federal court in Los Angeles, seeking to prevent the removal of the cross, which was part of a design adopted nearly five decades ago.
Now this was adopted 5 decades ago?? And 2000 people were against it being removed, and a private firm had filed a law suit to stop the Cross removal..hmmmm

The standing-room-only audience estimated at 2,000 -- the largest crowd to attend a county supervisors' meeting in recent decades -- included people of many faiths and some who espoused no faith. They were united in opposing removal of the cross. Some held signs that read "Jews for the L.A. County Seal," "Buddhists for the Seal" and "Stop the ACLU Nazis." OK sounds like a representative cross section of the area..

"This is a religious frenzy," said Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, who voted with Supervisors Zev Yaroslavsky and Gloria Molina to uphold the board's decision of last week to negotiate a solution acceptable to the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. I bet shes a athiest, lefty, commie..

The ACLU had said it would sue on grounds that the cross is impermissible under the U.S. Constitution. Of course they did, its a Christian symbol and that is what they hate most, they are so anti-christian they don't even try to hide it anymore. If it had been a picture of a black man, or a jewish star of david they wouldn't have given a rats a$$. But it was a Christian symbol therefore it has to go!!

Last Wednesday, the county and the ACLU reached a tentative agreement to replace the cross with depictions of a mission and indigenous people.

After the five-hour hearing Tuesday, some people in the crowd expressed outrage after the board rejected a motion by Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich -- backed by Supervisor Don Knabe -- to reject the tentative deal with the ACLU. Ahhh a clear head in the crowd of ACLU lackeys..

"To me, this is absolutely outrageous and I'm embarrassed by how the supervisors treated some of the speakers," said Rosemead Mayor Margaret Clark. (I can bet they won't be supervisors come next election time..:) Thats one good thing to come out of this maybe.

Antonovich said he plans to bring a motion to the board next week to put a measure on the ballot for county voters to decide whether to retain the cross. Now theres a novel idea, letting the majority decide what they want, let the people decide, not like the judge in the flag pole/ american flag case did.

Burke said that based on the public's comments Tuesday, the issue was one of religion, not preservation of county history as some speakers claimed.

"This is as close to the Inquisition as we have seen in the 21st century," she said.

Los Angeles-based radio host Dennis Prager, who led an outdoor rally before the supervisors met, told the board that the ACLU wants to erase evidence of America's religious heritage and history. Yep thats exactly right, they hate it, they can't stand it, they want all religions cut from the society they want to help rule. All hail the Anti-Christian Lefty Union!!

"I don't believe you realize the severity of the mistake you are making. I'm a religious, practicing Jew. To take the cross off the seal is terrible. The ACLU is fooling you; they are leading you down a very terrible path. Don't rewrite our history." OK I thought the supervisor a paragraph or two ago said the public made it a religious fight, this Jew is saying its a history issue, whats the deal here? And thank you to the Jewish friend that had the guts to stand up when he saw something not right.

Burke, Yaroslavsky and Molina said they voted against Antonovich's motion because federal courts have ordered numerous cities and counties to remove crosses from their seals, and they believe the cross is unconstitutional.

"There is only one case in the United States, and we all know it was in Austin, Texas, where any religious symbol was maintained," said Yaroslavsky.

Yaroslavsky told the audience he was incensed that the supervisors had been called "anti-Christian" in the past week as the controversy raged on talk radio shows and in the community.

Since last week, five conservative legal groups have offered to represent the county at no cost, to fight the ACLU's threat. Ya fight them on their own turf, that at least is not laying down like sheeple and getting trampled on.

One of those groups, the Thomas More Law Center, a Catholic public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Mich., filed a lawsuit Friday in federal district court in Los Angeles seeking to prevent county officials from removing the cross.

It was filed on behalf of Ernesto Vasquez, a county Public Works Department supervisory clerk who objects to the removal of the cross because, according to the suit, the action would send a government-sponsored message of hostility toward Christianity in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Ahhh the government being anti-christion, tell me its not so! I see the ACLU< Anti-Christian Lefty Union as just that, but not the governement, please tell thats right...

"California has become a battleground for anti-Christian forces," said attorney Charles LiMandri, director of the law center's West Coast office in San Diego. No actually hes wrong, The entire US has become a battleground. Every time the ACLU chooses a fight, it has something to do with things they have no business being involved in. And aren't there enough stupid law suits (flags and flagpole issues and such) to keep our over burdened courts full without Anti-Christian Lefty Union sticking its nose in everywhere it doesn't belong??? Hey ACLU, stop trying to make America a communist state, stop trying to eliminate those you don't like. Because we are getting tired of it, real tired. Next time I see a ACLU bumper sticker I'm gonna kick the driver in the ass and ask him if he liked it. Because thats what the ACLU is doing to all decent people in the US, kicking us in the as$.
religion
2,337 views 13 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

I've got an ACLU bumper sticker and I invite you to drive around Eugene Oregon and see if you can kick my ass, little man.


Cheers

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I just don't get that country some days. I mean... how can you try to abolish all of the things that the country was founded upon in the first place?
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
The issue is that the cross is Christian, and the state that is prevented from establishing any religion by its constitution. The rest, well, who cares? If you want to change that constitution then you have to go through an amendment process, as detailed in that constitution. These processes require large majorities, among other things. Since there isn't a large majority that would support such an amendment, there isn't an amendment. It's not like it wouldn't be politically popular to put forth such an amendment, but since the majority isn't with you on this it's instead political suicide. Rant all you like about the ACLU, but if the laws weren't on the books the way they currently are then the ACLU wouldn't have been able to do what they've done. If you want to change those laws, go ahead and try to do so through the democratic process.

If you want to argue the legality of this action wrt the California constituition, put forth that argument.

But hey, if you want to step outside. . . just kidding. That's gotta be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
California is a battleground because for decades they have quietly stacked their courts with every activist judge they could find. Courts in California are for legislation, not justice. This is also the state that can't seem to go a decade without electing some popular actor to poltical office. I think they are simple, easily-swayed folks.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

The ACLU stands up for the rights of every group which is having their liberties stepped on.  There's a great case where the ACLU filed suit on behalf of the KKK in order that they may have a peaceful parade.


Cheesr

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: jeblackstarPosted: Thursday, June 10, 2004I've got an ACLU bumper sticker and I invite you to drive around Eugene Oregon and see if you can kick my ass, little man


It was a form of emotional speech you dolt, not literal. But if you like...
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wonder why people aren't fighting all the other religious symbols out there, like the stuff on our money, except for the "In God We Trust" thing. I guess if it isn't Christian, it's all right.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Saiyan Robot - They are. And give me a good reason why the federal government isn't violating the establishment clause of the first amendment by putting "In God We Trust" on dollar bills.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's good. I wonder what they'll replace the pyramid and the Latin and the "In God We Trust" though. I accept that it's violating the 1st amendment, just like all the other religious symbols, and quite possibly the names and symbols of planets.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

The Latin says "Novus Ordos Seclorum" Which means a New Order for the Ages.  It's not relgious at all.


Cheers

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Daniel TurnerPosted: Thursday, June 10, 2004Saiyan Robot - They are. And give me a good reason why the federal government isn't violating the establishment clause of the first amendment by putting "In God We Trust" on dollar bills.


Dan,

The Constitution doesn't say Freedom FROM religion, it says "Freedom OF religion". The Government can print a symbol of a religion without endorsing it. The issue in the Constitution on religion is to prevent the government forcing one religion on the people. I don't think they are forcing Christian religion on me becuase I use money that has "God" on it.

The Constitution says government will not establish a religion. They are not establishing anything by paying respect to one because of history. Christian beliefs are part of the American history and thats just a fact of our past. By placing "In God we trust" on money the government is not saying you have to be a Christian. If they put a photo of a person on the money are they saying that person was great? Jefferson was a slave owner, why have the black population not asked and forced his picture to be removed? Becuase its part of our past. What is the definition of "establishing"

es·tab·lish ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-stblsh)
tr.v. es·tab·lished, es·tab·lish·ing, es·tab·lish·es

To set up; found. See Synonyms at found1.
To bring about; generate: establish goodwill in the neighborhood.

To place or settle in a secure position or condition; install: They established me in my own business.
To make firm or secure.
To introduce and put (a law, for example) into force.
To prove the validity or truth of: The defense attorneys established the innocence of the accused.
To make a state institution of (a church).

I don't think putting a cross on a symbol, or the word "God" on our money does any of the above things. Thats the Websters dictionary definition of Establish.

If they do this, where does it stop? Take the word "God" out of all official speeches, memorials, and any images of any religion. Any museum funded by the government would have to remove any religious references. Where do we draw the line?? We have to stop stripping our society of references to religions that helped form our country. Like it or not these symbols and words are a part of our past and should be remembered and honored. Just as we honor those killed in the holocaust. Should we do away with that national memorial because it has jewish religious symbols and references all over it? Where does it stop??? If you don't like the symbol, don't look at it. If you don't want to say the word "God" in the pledge, don't. But don't make the rest of us change what has been and should be our great traditions and honors of the past just because you want to force your will on someone. By choosing not to say God we say thats OK we don't want to force our will on you, but it goes both ways. If you don't want to say the pledge thats OK don't. But don't take away my kids right to say it in class. If you don't want to pray before a football game, then don't thats OK, but don't tell us we can't excecise that freedom. We let you choose not to do these things, but let us choose to do them if we so choose.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
ShadowWar - Fantastic answer! But you're wrong Here's why:

The Government can print a symbol of a religion without endorsing it. The issue in the Constitution on religion is to prevent the government forcing one religion on the people. I don't think they are forcing Christian religion on me becuase I use money that has "God" on it.


The Government, in this case, is not forcing religion on you, but they are endorsing religion, because when you have the government (not politicians, who have their first amendment right to invoke God all they want) using its power to promote God, you automatically have an endorsement of religion. Can't have God wihout religion.
If they put a photo of a person on the money are they saying that person was great? Jefferson was a slave owner, why have the black population not asked and forced his picture to be removed? Becuase its part of our past.


The In God We Trust thing was actually added to our money about a century ago, so this isn't something that we've done since the founding. The Government is not stopped by the constitution from saying a person was great, so this point is irrelevant to the debate. But to answer your question about why no one has asked for the removal of Jefferson's picture from money, it's because they don't have grounds to do so, since the Government isn't restricted from endorsing slavery (so long as they don't actually allow it). I think that the "part of our past" argument is useful, but incorrect. I doubt most religious people would allow that the only significance of the word God is historical.

To bring about; generate.

To place or settle in a secure position or condition.
To make firm or secure.
To introduce and put into force.
To make a state institution of.


I think that the State using its power to put "God" on stuff falls into most of those categories. Though of course the definition of Establish is not given by the dictionary, but by supreme court precendent.

Um, as for the rest of your post, as I've already said politicians have their first amendment right of free speech, and so can't be stopped from saying it in speeches. As for the museum thing, there's historical or artistic significance to what they house, and this is made pretty clear in that they are museums. You can't say the same for money because it has none of these things. So the line is pretty clear. I don't want the government at any level using its power to promote God. From there, I think you've misunderstood some things. No one is forced to not be religious in any of those contexts. The prayer before football games issue is about schools using their government power to have that prayer be sanctioned, as in given special time for just prayer. You can still pray any time you want, but the government can't endorse it. As for the pledge, why can't you just add your God bit to it and let the rest of us have an America that the support of which does not require religious affiliation? Your kid still has every right to talk about God any time he or she wants, but the government can't endorse it. So we can have it all - you say what you want and I say what I want, and the government stays the heck out of it.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Latin says "Novus Ordos Seclorum" Which means a New Order for the Ages.  It's not relgious at all.


That one isn't, but the All-Seeing Eye seems to be, and the quote above it seems to be as well: "Annuit Coeptis" meaning "He (God) has favored our undertakings."

Why don't people who complain about "In God We Trust." say nothing about these two blatant symbols of religion? I think it's because they aren't intelligent enough to Google the meaning of it.