But that apparently doesn't apply to the courts. Who can decide what's best for us by judicial fiat.
The main argument against a cross memorializing the sacrifice of WW I veterans is that it "excludes" other veterans from being honored.
Excuse me f***tards but just because a memorial is in honor of a particular group doesn't mean it's specifically intended to give a different group the proverbial finger. Yes, I'll grant that the park agency should have allowed a Buddhist symbol to be placed on the land. However, tearing down the cross doesn't put a Buddhist symbol up there.
I'd be inclined to believe this was a pro 1st Amendment argument if it was constructive (i.e. - let's allow ALL religious symbols to be placed) in nature. Of course, the ACLU, in it's infinite Christian-bashing "wisdom", cannot abide a cross on federal land & supported a former National Park Service employee who quite possibly had honorable intentions for bringing forth the lawsuit.
0 comments:
Post a Comment