Gadawg73
Gold Member
- Feb 22, 2009
- 14,426
- 1,618
In my opinion, only a court hostile to Christianity would rule that a cross on a grave conveys any message whatsoever apart from each independent individual's interpretation of what the cross signifies. A court not hostile to Christianity would see that there is no requirement for any person to accept any doctrine, dogma, creed, opinion or whatever because of the presence of those crosses and using the symbol is not an establishment or endorsement of religion but is merely respect for the faith of the fallen. Further nobody is required to be interred in a military cemetary if the family does not want that. I would think it appropriate for say a Jewish family to be able to request a star of David be used instead of a cross but things like that can be worked out.
Unfortunately we have had courts hostile to Christianity making these rulings, the ACLU gets rich at taxpayer expense filing those kinds of lawsuits--in my opinion THAT is a violation of the First Amendment--and other courts then have a precedent to use to keep it going.
And I think that is just plain wrong and an erosion of our unalienable rights.
The ACLU defends street preachers in every case nation wide where local municipalities and cities pass ordinances banning them from street preaching. And ACLU wins every case.
How does the ACLU "get rich at taxpayer expense" when it receives NO FUNDING at all from any government or entity?
You can't repeat everything you hear without researching it first. That is another religous right wing myth.
ACLU receives NO taxpayer funding.
Where did you hear that whopper of a fib?