 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
wwIIvetsdaughter
Captain
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 513
Location: McAllen, Texas
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:28 pm Post subject: Atheists Want Utah Roadside Cross Removed |
 |
|
I just heard on Fox that atheists in Utah have sued to have roadside crosses put up by the State of Utah to commemorate the site where an officer of the law was killed in the line of duty removed.  They are offened that the crosses are paid for by the state, for state employees on state property (easement). This War on Christianity frosts me, just where is it in the Constitution that you are entitled not to be offended?  Would it not follow that if a judge rules in the atheists favor that crosses at Arlington and every other military cemetary would be illegal? Are they not paid for by the government, for a government employee who died in the line of duty? I hope the Utah judge sends a quick and swift message of "offened? tough, get used to it!" type decision to these bozos.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GenrXr
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 1720
Location: Houston
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
At some point in time people are going to get tired of these loons and their attempts in court will fall on deaf ears.
_________________
"An activist is the person who cleans up the water, not the one claiming its dirty."
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Founder of Conservative Philosophy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Atheists are offensive  (__!__) .
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GenrXr wrote: | | At some point in time people are going to get tired of these loons and their attempts in court will fall on deaf ears. |
The ACLU has succeeded in creating a reputation for protecting the American public from "harmful" violations of the Constitution by individuals and government entities. In fact, their activities constitute a racket, the objective of which is to make M-O-N-E-Y.
Phyllis Schlafly wrote a piece in 2004 pretty well explaining the elements of the racket. The ACLU has seized upon a 1976 civil rights law meant to assist individuals in pursuing court cases. The ACLU has conveniently defined itself as an "individual" in order to rake in the cash from taxpayers.
Here are a few snips from Schlafly's piece which is entitled, "Pots of Gold Behind Crosses and Ten Commandments".
| Quote: | A little known 1976 federal law called the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees awards Act enables the ACLU to collect attorney's fees for its suits against crosses, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Ten Commandments. This law was designed to help plaintiffs in civil rights cases, but the ACLU is using it for First Amendment cases, asserting a civil right NOT to see a cross or the Ten Commandments.
The financial lure created by this law is the engine that is driving dozens of similar cases all over the country. Every state, county, city, public park or school that has a cross, a Ten Commandments plaque or monument, or recites the Pledge of Allegiance, has become a target for ACLU fundraising.
There are thousands of Ten Commandments plaques or monuments all over the country, and lawsuits to remove them have popped up in more than a dozen states. In Utah the ACLU even announced a scavenger hunt with a prize for anyone who could find another Ten Commandments monument that the ACLU could persuade an activist judge to remove.
The most famous Ten Commandments case is the one in the State Judicial Building in Montgomery, Alabama, installed by Chief Justice Roy Moore and ordered removed by a Carter-appointed federal judge. As their reward for winning its removal, the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Southern Poverty Law Center collected $540,000 in attorney's fees and expenses from the Alabama taxpayers.
Kentucky taxpayers have handed over $121,500 to pay the ACLU for its action against the Ten Commandments display outside its state capitol. Taxpayers in one Tennessee county had to pay the ACLU $50,000 for the same "offense."
The ACLU profited enormously, collecting $790,000 in legal fees plus $160,000 in court costs, as a result of its suit to deny the Boy Scouts of America the use of San Diego's Balboa Park for a summer camp, a city facility the Scouts had used since 1915. The ACLU argued that the Boy Scouts must be designated a "religious organization" because it refuses to accept homosexual scoutmasters, and because the Scouts use an oath "to do my duty to God and my country."
*****
Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) has introduced H.R. 3609 to end this racket by amending the federal law that makes it possible. Most lawsuits do not award attorney's fees to the winner, and the law should not give a financial incentive to those suing to stop our acknowledgment of God, or to continue a practice or a symbol that the American people have approved for decades. |
(We in Alabama are still paying off the ACLU for saving us from the harmful emanations radiating from Judge Moore's Commandments monument. By the way, I was a Boy Scout in the 1940's, enjoying the Balboa Park camp sites generously provided by the City of San Diego.)
Schlafly's full article is found at:
http://www.yaf.org/speakers/op-ed/schlafly_commandments.html
It'll make 'ya mad.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Criminal Liberties Union and other organizations need to be cut off from the Taxpayer's money. That's like paying the crook to embezzle your account. The sooner the better, these creeps are parasites on the public.
I am an Eagle Scout and the anti-American values types are bent on destroying that which is good and moral. They need to be defeated.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
from Schadow's reference to Schlafly's piece
| Quote: | | Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) has introduced H.R. 3609 to end this racket by amending the federal law that makes it possible. Most lawsuits do not award attorney's fees to the winner, and the law should not give a financial incentive to those suing to stop our acknowledgment of God, or to continue a practice or a symbol that the American people have approved for decades. |
The law that ACLU collects fees under
Civil Rights Attorneys Fees Awards Act
| Quote: | the court,
in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney's fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer's jurisdiction.
|
Hostettler’s bill HR2679
| Quote: | SUMMARY:
Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 - Amends the Revised Statutes of the United States to limit the remedy to injunctive relief and deny attorneys' fees in a civil action against a state or local official for deprivation of rights where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion.
5/26/2005:
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. |
write your congresscritter, to support HR 2679, ( 2005 version of the bill) get it out of committee, put a stop to ACLU getting our tax dollars for some of these cases. At the link you can see which congresscritters are already on-board ( as co-sponsers)
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
USAFE5
PO2
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 362
Location: Reno Nevada
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That bill is not quite accurate. The consitution does not prohibit the establishment of religion, it prohibits THE GOVERNMENT from establishing a religion.
_________________
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I’m here to help." Ronald Reagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BuffaloJack
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1637
Location: Buffalo, New York
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| USAFE5 wrote: | | That bill is not quite accurate. The consitution does not prohibit the establishment of religion, it prohibits THE GOVERNMENT from establishing a religion. |
Freedon of Religion is a far cry different from the more the Left's interpretation as Freedom From Religion.
_________________
Swift Boats - Qui Nhon (12/69-4/70), Cat Lo (4/70-5/70), Vung Tau (5/70-12/71) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| USAFE5 wrote: | | That bill is not quite accurate. The consitution does not prohibit the establishment of religion, it prohibits THE GOVERNMENT from establishing a religion. |
It's beyond me why people do not understand that (or choose not to). There are two clear definitions of "establishment". The first is something that IS established. The second is the ACT of establishing.
It is perhaps unfortunate that the Founders used the word "establishment" instead of something less ambiguous, but there it is. They were still smarting from the tyranny of the Anglican Church of England and attempting to ensure that a National Church of the United States would not be created by the government.
The phrase "establishment clause", so glibly mouthed as holy writ by anyone seeking to strip any vestige of religious expression from the public square, is itself being used to create a kind of tyranny of which even the Anglicans would have been jealous. How ironic.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd recommend anyone who has not read "Men in Black" by Mark R. Levin to get it. (Levin is head of the Landmark Legal Foundation, a constitutional scholar, and hosts his own evening talk show heard on WABC NY and in Dallas. ) He explains succinctly the out of control judiciary and its inroads into the body politic by making decisions based on policy, on personal belief, inference and non-constitutional law. The Great One also has proposals to change this including having Congress exercise its right to define the juridiction of the courts. If Congress had the cajones, the 9th Circus Court of Schlemiels and some of their outrageous rulings would be history.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
