That is the most unAmerican organization ever created to defend the American Way.

So lets get this straight. If person A has lived rightly or wrongly as a committed Christian their entire life, paid taxes without complaint and generally been an upstanding citizen particularly a war veteran surely they should be entitled to have a cross, crown of thorns or a replica of the stable on THEIR tombstone????

What is the ACLU advocating? making the ruling retroactive and dismantling peoples graves????

All for separation of church and state but there is room in between for common sense and basic decency to the dead.

It wasn't a gravesite, Nick - it was a stand alone memorial. I think that the courts have made a mess of the church-state cases (in all directions), and I'm not sure that I would have (a) pressed this case or (b) decided against grandfathering in the display, but let's not make it worse than it is. Snopes is right; the ACLU isn't petitioning to remove crosses from gravesites.

Sorry Ugarte,

I'm with Karol on this one. This ACLU needs to leave cross displays alone, and stop butting in on Christians who want to pray in schools or on any moves which will tend to make America a 100% Christian nation. All these centuries of religious freedom has just led to rioting and the september 11 attacks. Besides, once everyone is a government mandated Christian, the Pope can handle the matter of making them all Catholic.

In Deo speramus.

Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., filed a measure to amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorneys fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings. If you want to corral the ACLU, then consider a letter or email to your Congressman urging them to cosponsor this legislation. Here's a short description of the bill, it's too new to have been published in thomas.loc.gov yet.

=======================

May 26, 2005
H.R.2679 - Referred to House committee. (2005-05-26)
Filed under: Legislation — Administrator @ 12:00 am

Sponsor of H.R.2679: To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and attorney’s fees.

I think they are interpreting it incorrectly. Intead of tearing down the cross, they should force the guys who erected the cross to come back from the dead and setup similar displays for all major faiths of the world (major = 200 or more adherants). And if they refuse? Lock 'm up in zombie prison!

Still Snopes is not wrong on calling it false.
I could see Snopes using this as one of the examples they already give of ACLU meddling.
But saying the ACLU wants to remove headstones from cemetaries is False, so Snopes is correct.

You got me, Dawn. I think this situation is retarded because I want everyone to be a Christian and for Christianity to be the mandated law of the land. Well, for everyone except me, seeing as I'm Jewish and staying that way.

Paul, if the ACLU is successful in removing this headstone, why wouldn't it try for the rest? I mean, all those crosses in cemetaries must make people just run out and become Christians, unable to resist the cross, like Dawn Summers implies.

And Nick, don't confuse me by agreeing with me.

There is a bright side to this.

The ACLU is the last refuge for unemployable lawyers. If these lawyers were not using wacko-judges to steal money from us, they would be mugging us on the streets for the same amount of money.

There's "Separation of Church and State"...and then there's "going so far as to undermine every good fight we've fought over our long and illustrious history and inching closer and closer to the brink of marginalization and unending ridicule from every corner of society."

Paul, if the ACLU is successful in removing this headstone, why wouldn't it try for the rest? I mean, all those crosses in cemetaries must make people just run out and become Christians, unable to resist the cross, like Dawn Summers implies.

Karol,
Did you even bother to read the article you cited or any of the opinions in the case? As PAUL implies, there's no headstone. There's no cemetary. There is a cross. A cross in the middle of a very large national forest. And, right or wrong, there's a fairly well-established body of precedent that crosses on public property are generally unconstitutional, particularly where, as here, the government has prevented members of other religions from erecting their own symbols/memorials. The ACLU very well may be out to remove headstones in cemetaries throughout the country, but you're going to need slightly better proof for the argument to be taken seriously.

Alceste, if a cross on public property here is wrong, why isn't wrong in national cemeteries? What's the difference? I don't get your argument.

In a national cemetary, any headstone can include an "emblem of belief" from just about any recognized religion that you've probably heard of.

As for my "argument," I am unaware of any national cemetaries that currently permit free-standing crosses. That does not, of course, mean that there aren't any - maybe there are, maybe there aren't. Your comment, however, refers to the ACLU removing "this headstone." But there is no headstone. This cross is not in a cemetary. It's a free-standing memorial. The government has prevented others of different faiths from erecting their own memorial in the same location. To say that there is no difference between this cross and a headstone in a national cemetary (which can be individually altered to reflect one's faith) confounds me.

This case also makes protection of Indian sacred ground by the Federal government illegal. Creating sacred ground where the public can see it is against the civil rights act of 1976.

Dawn, I will fund your lawsuits against the Indian tribes and we will split the loot. It's time we got some of the casino money back.

The indians had the sacred ground first. The Federal Goverment did not "create" sacred ground.

PAUL - I am not sure that necessarily distinguishes the facts - the federal goverment did not create the memorial here either...

Paul

The illegal sacred ground facts are the same as the case in question.

In the case, a historical monument was created on private property to honor the war dead. The federal government took over the land and the monument containing a religious symbol has to be destroyed.

The Indians created sacred ground. The federal government took over the land and the anything that is a religious symbol on that land has to be destroyed. These sites are common in the West.

Yep, Dawn are going to be rich suing the Indian Tribes.

for better or for worse though, the law has protected places of worship on public land (there are plenty of christian churches on national park land too) differently from standalone symbols...

Great post! Perhaps you might be interested in joining our weekly Stop The ACLU blogburst Thursday?

http://www.stoptheaclu.blogspot.com

Well, I wasn't going to be a Christian, never wanted to be...

But the Lower case "T" in the alphabet looks so much like a cross, and it's in my first name (Robert) so I see it everyday, and now, I'm a brainwashed Christian.

I wish I had free will like a sentient being; but since I don't I'm glad the ACLU is there to hold my hand and wipe my face like my momma used to do.

Hopefully the ACLU will fix the alphabet so others aren't brainwashed like I was...

Since it was erected on private land by veterans of WW1, this should be taken as a slap in the face to all veterans. They served their country, and built a memorial to their fallen comrades, and now the ACLU wants to destroy that memorial. Hey, why not? Just don't tell NAMBLA they can't print a book helping child molesters ply their craft.