ACLU Continues to Dig Hole for Itself on Katrina Memorial, LA Times Buys Joe Cook’s “Arguments”
From the LA Times today: Swords Being Crossed Over Memorial to Katrina Victims
NEW ORLEANS — A proposed memorial to victims of Hurricane Katrina from St. Bernard’s Parish that includes a cross bearing a depiction of Jesus has spurred a conflict between parish officials and the American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU says incorporating a cross in the memorial is unconstitutional because local government officials were part of the committee that conceived the idea and because the group thinks the site where it will be erected is public land.
But parish officials insist that the land where the memorial will be placed is private, though it is near a public waterway. And they argue that parish employees, who are members of the memorial committee, are volunteers who worked on the project on their own time, using private funding.
OK, so the ACLU is arguing that public employees have no right to take part in any community activity outside their official capacity. Wouldn’t a prohibition of this sort violate some right to something? I guess I should just trust the “Guardian of Our Liberties” and concede that it doesn’t.
The ACLU “thinks” this is public land? Either it is or it isn’t public land. Ooooooooooooh, I get it…it’s NEAR public land. There’s your smoking gun ACLU!
Joe (people that pray are the same as 9/11 terrorists) Cook descends more deeply into the absurd:
Joe Cook, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana, said his group had initially learned of the memorial through news reports. He is waiting to receive information from the parish about the project and the involvement of parish employees.
“The cross, with a government endorsement, sends a message that only Christians are welcome in St. Bernard Parish,” Cook said. “That is a very inappropriate message for a government to send.”Cook said that to his knowledge, the memorial would be placed in a waterway that is normally public land.
“Even if it’s private land, at this point it’s [about whether] the government is entangled with the memorial,” Cook said. “If a private group had come up with this idea and funded it, we would protect their right to do that.”
So…Joe Cook doesn’t know the details of the project, yet threatens to sue.
What does “normally public land” mean?
The kicker is the last quote. I don’t even think I need to describe how absolutely LUNATIC Cook’s statment is.
Cook said his group would prefer to resolve the matter without litigation. A decision will not be made until the ACLU has all the facts.
Vintage ACLU — threaten a small, hurricane-crippled community (without all the facts) with the full force of a national organization endowed with limitless resources…then say you’d rather this not be litigated. Yeah, you’d rather the community be intimidated into submission. This folks, is the the ACLU perfectly encapsulated.
Email This
Posted by G. Fortunato on August 16, 2006 9:30 am
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Church And State, News
Trackback URL:
- The Scratching Post: Now We Can't Have Crosses on Private Land?
- Conservative Outpost: Daily Summary
- Gulf Coast Pundit: ACLU Intimidates Devastated Parish
- The World According To Carl: ACLU vs. Memorial In St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana: UPDATE
- The Bos’un Locker » ACLU Continues to Dig Hole for Itself on Katrina Memorial, LA Times Buys Joe Cook’s “Arguments” pinged this post.
Comments
One Response to “ACLU Continues to Dig Hole for Itself on Katrina Memorial, LA Times Buys Joe Cook’s “Arguments””
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
According to the ACLU’s argument the U.S. government is mandated to pay for any private land that has become flooded due to their poor engineering since they have taken it away from its proper owners and made it public.
The argument aboug=t government workers not being able to be in a meeting that involves religion would stop government workers from attending church meetings which would violate the free expression clause of the U.S. Constitution as well as free speech.