Disputed Mojave cross honoring U.S. war dead stolen

May 11, 2010 Full story: Deseret Morning News 28

A cross erected on a remote Mojave Desert outcropping to honor American war dead has been stolen less than two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed it to remain standing while a legal battle continued over its presence on federal land.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
tea tards

Santa Monica, CA

#1 May 11, 2010
who would do a thing so stupid.
koz

Shippingport, PA

#2 May 12, 2010
The real haters, incited by the ACLU.
djazz

Providence, RI

#3 May 12, 2010
That was so nice of the Supreme Court to "allow" us to honor our service members.
Tamerlane

Tallahassee, FL

#4 May 12, 2010
djazz wrote:
That was so nice of the Supreme Court to "allow" us to honor our service members.
Because that was what the case was about.
Oh wait, no it wasn't...
djazz

Providence, RI

#5 May 12, 2010
It says:
" the U.S. Supreme Court allowed it to remain standing... on federal land. "
Are there Veteran's Cemeteries on federal land?
Are we allowed to put crosses on their graves?
Are American flags allowed to remain on Cinco de Mayo?
Tamerlane

Tallahassee, FL

#6 May 12, 2010
djazz wrote:
It says:
" the U.S. Supreme Court allowed it to remain standing... on federal land. "
Are there Veteran's Cemeteries on federal land?
Are we allowed to put crosses on their graves?
Are American flags allowed to remain on Cinco de Mayo?
I think you better go read the actual case.

Seriously. You don't seem to understand the issues.
koz

Shippingport, PA

#7 May 12, 2010
Tamerlane wrote:
I think you better go read the actual case.
Seriously. You don't seem to understand the issues.
The issue was that a hate crime was not allowed to stand. But the liberal democrat hate criminals were not about to let the law of the land dampen their hate.
Tamerlane

Tallahassee, FL

#8 May 12, 2010
koz wrote:
<quoted text>The issue was that a hate crime was not allowed to stand. But the liberal democrat hate criminals were not about to let the law of the land dampen their hate.
That wasn't the issue of the underlying case either.

Don't you people read?
Dude

Hartford, CT

#9 May 12, 2010
Liberals are the sickest bunch of hypocrites around - always trying to stifle freedom in the name of freedom and quell free speech in the name of free speech.

Next the ACLU will sue people for speaking the word "God" in public on the grounds that the State owns the air we breathe.
Tamerlane

Tallahassee, FL

#10 May 12, 2010
Dude wrote:
Liberals are the sickest bunch of hypocrites around - always trying to stifle freedom in the name of freedom and quell free speech in the name of free speech.
Next the ACLU will sue people for speaking the word "God" in public on the grounds that the State owns the air we breathe.
Your ignorance is breathtaking.

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com

You are so biased and brainwashed that you do not even realize the ACLU would be defending those that wanted to express their religion in public, as they have done many, many times.

Idiot.
koz

Shippingport, PA

#11 May 12, 2010
Tamerlane wrote:
That wasn't the issue of the underlying case either.
Don't you people read?
Certainly, but reading between the lines of our elitist rulers is most important.
Tamerlane

Tallahassee, FL

#12 May 13, 2010
koz wrote:
<quoted text>Certainly, but reading between the lines of our elitist rulers is most important.
You mean reading and seeing what you want to see instead of the truth.

I was right, you've never even read the court opinion.

LOL
koz

Shippingport, PA

#13 May 13, 2010
Tamerlane wrote:
You mean reading and seeing what you want to see instead of the truth.
No, the truth is often between lines written to obscure the truth. That is particulary true for liberal Supreme Court justices.
Tamerlane

Tallahassee, FL

#14 May 13, 2010
koz wrote:
<quoted text>No, the truth is often between lines written to obscure the truth. That is particulary true for liberal Supreme Court justices.
I see.

Well then you are just an ignorant political ideologue with no interest in hearing about facts or law that don't comport with your personal beliefs, no matter how true.

In other words, you aren't worth talking to.
Paper Shredder

Los Angeles, CA

#15 May 13, 2010
If you don't like the ACLU then you should consider supporting the ADF. Just watch how this post gets ripped to shreds.

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/main/defau...
The ACLU has consistently shown contempt for public expression of religion - especially America's Judeo-Christian legacy. They have promoted an inaccurate representation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment and regularly invoke the so-called "separation of church and state" to justify their anti-religious stance.
Tamerlane

Tallahassee, FL

#16 May 14, 2010
Paper Shredder wrote:
If you don't like the ACLU then you should consider supporting the ADF. Just watch how this post gets ripped to shreds.
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/main/defau...
The ACLU has consistently shown contempt for public expression of religion - especially America's Judeo-Christian legacy. They have promoted an inaccurate representation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment and regularly invoke the so-called "separation of church and state" to justify their anti-religious stance.
cough
bullshit
cough

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com

UNLIKE the ADF, which is NOT a civil rights organization but a fundamentalis Christian lobbying group, the ACLU stands up for everyone's rights, no matter what race, nationality or religion.

Contrast this with the ADF, whose mission is to undermine the Establishment clause to promote their twisted and loony right wing version of Christianity in the public schools and elsewhere.

Show me a case where the ADF defended the free exercise rights of a non-Christian. Show me a case where they fought to uphold the Establishment clause when a Christian was involved.

OR STFU.
koz

Shippingport, PA

#17 May 14, 2010
Tamerlane wrote:
Contrast this with the ADF, whose mission is to undermine the Establishment clause to promote their twisted and loony right wing version of Christianity in the public schools and elsewhere.
The ACLU has already undermined the Establishment clause by having its clear meaning changed. What do you think that the words of the Establishment clause are? Do you think that the words "wall" or "separation" are in the Establishment clause?
Tamerlane

Tallahassee, FL

#18 May 14, 2010
koz wrote:
<quoted text>The ACLU has already undermined the Establishment clause by having its clear meaning changed. What do you think that the words of the Establishment clause are? Do you think that the words "wall" or "separation" are in the Establishment clause?
The ACLU has not the power to do that. If you have a problem with modern interpretations of the First Amendment, take it up with the SCOTUS. They make the decisions about what the words you cite mean in the context of a particular case and specific set of facts.

That's how it works in the real world, not on some fundy blog.

Is the word "privacy" anywhere in the Constitution? How about "internet." Does this mean the Federal government can read your e-mail without your consent or probable cause? Or is it perhaps that the Fourth Amendment protects you against that, even though it was written in 1785 when there was no e-mail or Internet?

Yours is a very silly argument.
koz

Shippingport, PA

#19 May 14, 2010
Tamerlane wrote:
The ACLU has not the power to do that. If you have a problem with modern interpretations of the First Amendment, take it up with the SCOTUS. They make the decisions about what the words you cite mean in the context of a particular case and specific set of facts.
That's how it works in the real world, not on some fundy blog.
Is the word "privacy" anywhere in the Constitution? How about "internet." Does this mean the Federal government can read your e-mail without your consent or probable cause? Or is it perhaps that the Fourth Amendment protects you against that, even though it was written in 1785 when there was no e-mail or Internet?
Yours is a very silly argument.
I see you avoided the questions. Why can't you answer them?
Tamerlane

Tallahassee, FL

#20 May 14, 2010
koz wrote:
<quoted text>I see you avoided the questions. Why can't you answer them?
I answered your stupid question. The answer is that whether this is or that particular word is in the text of the constitution is not a valid argument in this context.

No one that has any knowledge of constitutional law or how the courts interpret it would ask such a stupid ass question.

If you cannot understand my answer above, that's not my problem. Go back to high school civics.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mojave National Preserve Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
This short, scenic Mojave train tour was a long... (Oct '10) Oct '10 Christopher Keller 1
Mojave Cross battle (Sep '10) Sep '10 Jack Corsaut 1
A cross in a national park in the Mojave Desert... (Sep '10) Sep '10 Jack Corsaut 1
Supreme Court Refuses to Ban Mojave Cross (Apr '10) May '10 Lucys_Fur_Coat 51
Thieves take controversial Mojave Desert cross (May '10) May '10 laojim 37
'Mojave Cross' Stolen; Was Subject Of Recent Su... (May '10) May '10 laojim 1
High court supports Mojave cross in Calif. (Apr '10) May '10 Deng 29
•••

Mojave National Preserve People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••