A small cross stands against the elements on Sunrise Rock in California’s Mojave Desert. It was erected in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars in memory of fallen soldiers who died for our country. This site was chosen by World War I veterans who sought out the desert environment as a healthy location for their recuperation. Since then, Marines have had memorial plaques placed with the cross honoring their lives and sacrifice.
The following article from Newsmax.com gives more background about the cross, its history and the controversy brewing.
http://www.newsmax.com/us/ACLU_attacks_war_crosses/2009/06/12/224649.html
More background is provided by individuals directly involved with maintaining the shrine the cross defines in the following video clip that will both make the extremely angry and heartbroken.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeuBB_mOFIA
Sadly once again, the radical left-wing hate group, the ACLU has gone to court to have the cross removed under their obscene misinterpretation of the 1st amendment suggesting that because the cross stands on Federal land, it constitutes an attempt by the state to impose religion on the people.
Issue after issue, Right Minded Fellow has established that the very rationale for our existence as a free republic invokes the understanding of God as the Declaration of Independence so clearly articulates:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
If in fact, we derive our basic freedoms which we found denied us by the British crown from our Creator, then is not recognition of that Creator a logical part our public dialog?
The first amendment in how it addresses religion is designed to support this notion not to deny it when it states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
Somehow, the ACLU turns this whole concept inside out that any free expression of religion on public property is the government somehow legislating the establishment of religion. In any of these cases, where is Congress involved in the first place?
The Constitution is crystal clear, it designates Congress as the agency and mandates that that institution of government neither imposes religion through law nor prevents people from freely practicing their religion.
In the Sunrise Cross case, the ACLU is seeking to use the court specifically to block the free expression of religion by seeking to have a passive symbol of deceased veterans’ faith to be removed. As such the memorial for these servicemen and the values it represents are prohibited by the 9th District Court as the agency of government actively denying expression.
As citizens of the United States, we live in a culture where citizens of all faiths are supposed to be free to practice their religion and freely express their beliefs. Whether it was the Catholics in Maryland, Quakers in Pennsylvania, or Pilgrims in Massachusetts, settlers came to colonize America for the promise of religious freedom fleeing Great Britain and Europe denied them.
Because the British government established the Church of England with the British king or queen acting as the head of the church and many continental countries acknowledged the Catholic Church as the official religion of the state, our founding fathers sought to make it part of our nation’s legal framework to make any officially established state church illegal and further would not allow the state to legislate the ways individuals chose to celebrate their faith.
When the Supreme Court under Chief Justice, Earl Warren, banned compulsory prayer in public school it argued that the state was mandating religious observance since the public school as the agent of the state prescribed a specific religious act, prayer, to be performed by all public school students. Because students are compelled to attend school and the school determines the content of a religious activity that clearly falls under the courts’ prohibition. The act of praying required specific behavior of students.
Sadly, that ruling opened the door for radical elements in society with a purely anti-religious agenda to attempt to extend that concept essentially to argue any mention of religion or presence of any religious artifact on public property with the approval of the state also constitutes an attempt to establish religion and thus impose it on the unwilling.
In recent years, court action has ordered the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings be removed. Courts have ordered Christmas decorations especially such displays as nativity scenes off of public land, but now the 9th District court attempts to personalize it even further in denying recognition of veterans’ faith in memorial.
The logic and reasoning is clearly set forth in this concept, there is nothing if the ACLU succeeds in getting this measure judged in their favor, then what would keep them from demanding the removal of crosses under the same logic from plots on Veterans’ cemeteries? Would the court see a difference between memorials for an individual being any different than that of a group of Veterans?
When one considers the language of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution and considers the historic challenges that compelled our founding fathers to articulate those rights, there can be no question that the ACLU’s attempts to create what amounts to a complete and total freedom from any public expression of religion, that somehow the simple display of items with religious meaning or symbolism infringes on a person’s liberties is absolutely absurd. One can chose to embrace or ignore the items of religious expression. No one is being mandated to do or believe anything nor is anyone’s ability to freely express his or her religious beliefs or lack of being adversely affected.
Once again, the radical left is shown as the champions of absolute intolerance.
For now, the current alignment of the Supreme Court could very well overrule the decision of the 9th District Court on the Sunrise Rock cross. However, in openly trying to apologize for American behavior to followers of Islam, President Barack Obama stated that the United States in neither “a Christian nor a Jewish nation.” President Obama has consistently supported the most radical contentions of the ACLU and his administration is loaded with leaders who have a long history of openly anti-religious behavior.
As such, people of faith must be fearful of potential Obama nominees not just to the Supreme Court but the entire Federal Bench. After all, as Sonya Sotomayor asserted, policy is made at the appeals court level.
The following article from Newsmax.com gives more background about the cross, its history and the controversy brewing.
http://www.newsmax.com/us/ACLU_attacks_war_crosses/2009/06/12/224649.html
More background is provided by individuals directly involved with maintaining the shrine the cross defines in the following video clip that will both make the extremely angry and heartbroken.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeuBB_mOFIA
Sadly once again, the radical left-wing hate group, the ACLU has gone to court to have the cross removed under their obscene misinterpretation of the 1st amendment suggesting that because the cross stands on Federal land, it constitutes an attempt by the state to impose religion on the people.
Issue after issue, Right Minded Fellow has established that the very rationale for our existence as a free republic invokes the understanding of God as the Declaration of Independence so clearly articulates:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
If in fact, we derive our basic freedoms which we found denied us by the British crown from our Creator, then is not recognition of that Creator a logical part our public dialog?
The first amendment in how it addresses religion is designed to support this notion not to deny it when it states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
Somehow, the ACLU turns this whole concept inside out that any free expression of religion on public property is the government somehow legislating the establishment of religion. In any of these cases, where is Congress involved in the first place?
The Constitution is crystal clear, it designates Congress as the agency and mandates that that institution of government neither imposes religion through law nor prevents people from freely practicing their religion.
In the Sunrise Cross case, the ACLU is seeking to use the court specifically to block the free expression of religion by seeking to have a passive symbol of deceased veterans’ faith to be removed. As such the memorial for these servicemen and the values it represents are prohibited by the 9th District Court as the agency of government actively denying expression.
As citizens of the United States, we live in a culture where citizens of all faiths are supposed to be free to practice their religion and freely express their beliefs. Whether it was the Catholics in Maryland, Quakers in Pennsylvania, or Pilgrims in Massachusetts, settlers came to colonize America for the promise of religious freedom fleeing Great Britain and Europe denied them.
Because the British government established the Church of England with the British king or queen acting as the head of the church and many continental countries acknowledged the Catholic Church as the official religion of the state, our founding fathers sought to make it part of our nation’s legal framework to make any officially established state church illegal and further would not allow the state to legislate the ways individuals chose to celebrate their faith.
When the Supreme Court under Chief Justice, Earl Warren, banned compulsory prayer in public school it argued that the state was mandating religious observance since the public school as the agent of the state prescribed a specific religious act, prayer, to be performed by all public school students. Because students are compelled to attend school and the school determines the content of a religious activity that clearly falls under the courts’ prohibition. The act of praying required specific behavior of students.
Sadly, that ruling opened the door for radical elements in society with a purely anti-religious agenda to attempt to extend that concept essentially to argue any mention of religion or presence of any religious artifact on public property with the approval of the state also constitutes an attempt to establish religion and thus impose it on the unwilling.
In recent years, court action has ordered the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings be removed. Courts have ordered Christmas decorations especially such displays as nativity scenes off of public land, but now the 9th District court attempts to personalize it even further in denying recognition of veterans’ faith in memorial.
The logic and reasoning is clearly set forth in this concept, there is nothing if the ACLU succeeds in getting this measure judged in their favor, then what would keep them from demanding the removal of crosses under the same logic from plots on Veterans’ cemeteries? Would the court see a difference between memorials for an individual being any different than that of a group of Veterans?
When one considers the language of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution and considers the historic challenges that compelled our founding fathers to articulate those rights, there can be no question that the ACLU’s attempts to create what amounts to a complete and total freedom from any public expression of religion, that somehow the simple display of items with religious meaning or symbolism infringes on a person’s liberties is absolutely absurd. One can chose to embrace or ignore the items of religious expression. No one is being mandated to do or believe anything nor is anyone’s ability to freely express his or her religious beliefs or lack of being adversely affected.
Once again, the radical left is shown as the champions of absolute intolerance.
For now, the current alignment of the Supreme Court could very well overrule the decision of the 9th District Court on the Sunrise Rock cross. However, in openly trying to apologize for American behavior to followers of Islam, President Barack Obama stated that the United States in neither “a Christian nor a Jewish nation.” President Obama has consistently supported the most radical contentions of the ACLU and his administration is loaded with leaders who have a long history of openly anti-religious behavior.
As such, people of faith must be fearful of potential Obama nominees not just to the Supreme Court but the entire Federal Bench. After all, as Sonya Sotomayor asserted, policy is made at the appeals court level.
No comments:
Post a Comment