ACLU Spending Your Tax Dollars To Usurp Your Freedom Of Religion

A sad commentary…

Just west of the California-Nevada border, 11 miles south of the freeway that connects San Diego with Las Vegas, a small hill rises above the sun-baked floor of the Mojave Desert. Atop that hill stands a six-foot cross, fashioned out of four-inch-diameter steel pipe. That dusty hilltop and its lonely marker just might become the scene of the most significant church-state controversy since last year’s fight over the Pledge of Allegiance.
In 1934, a gritty prospector named J. Riley Bembry gathered a couple of his fellow World War I veterans at Sunrise Rock. Together they erected the cross, in honor of their fallen comrades. The memorial has been privately maintained ever since, with small groups still occasionally meeting to remember the nation’s veterans.
A wrinkle developed in 1994, when the federal government declared the surrounding area a national preserve. With the cross now located on newly public land, the memorial soon caught the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union. Working with Frank Buono, a retired park ranger turned professional activist, the ACLU demanded that the National Park Service tear down the cross.
Mr. Buono insists that his seeing the monument (“two to four times a year”) violates his civil rights. A federal district court found in his favor, and the decision was subsequently upheld by the Ninth Circuit. Last-ditch attempts to deed Sunrise Rock over to the local Veterans of Foreign Wars were struck down in April. Defenders of the memorial hope to appeal, but their options are narrowing.
The ACLU, however, has made out quite nicely. Not only has it prevailed in the courts to date, but it has managed to pocket $63,000. Owing to a quirk in civil-rights law, the taxpayer once again ended up paying the ACLU for pressing a highly controversial church-state lawsuit.

Tags:


«
»
  • http://Array Carl B.

    Blind ACLU bashing at its finest. For whatever reasons, the cross didn’t meet the criterea of being declared an integral part of the preserve…just like an abandoned volkswagon would not have been. You can disagree with this, but it failed the existing official test. So a very shady amendment was tucked into the back of a bill to “protect the cross”…it was also a very shady amendment stapled to the fine print of a bill that would have “protected” other such objects that don’t meet the existing criterea of being declared part of a national preserve. This would of course have opened the door for ANY private interest to manipulate their material presence on protected land. Are you cool with that kind of thing? The ACLU became involved because of this, not because someone wanted to tear down a cross. When the court rightfully ruled that the action was indeed bad, it so happened that the monument fell with it. Should someone have decided to make a case to declare the cross a monument rather than try to make it illegal to remove an existing non-monument…let alone through such shady means….the ACLU would not have been involved. Don’t be stupid about the ACLU, they are on your side.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development