Faith

Memorial Day Music Video Asks That Mt. Soledad Veterans’ Memorial Cross Not Be Torn Down

Dont Tear Me Down Memorial Day Video Fights to Keep Mt. Soledad Memorial CrossThis Memorial Day, the Liberty Institute, a non-profit organization which claims to be dedicated to defending and restoring “religious liberty across America,” released a music video performed by Jon Christopher Davis entitled “Don’t Tear Me Down,” which seeks to preserve the Mount Soledad Memorial Cross.

The moving production, which features images of veterans, was meant to serve as a tribute to fallen soldiers and to preserve the religious symbols included in the veterans’ memorial.

“The ACLU is so driven to purge religious displays from the public square that they are continuing their attack against the unlikeliest of victims – the veterans and the memorials they built to honor their own,” Liberty Institute President Kelly Shackelford said in a statement published in the Christian Post.

“We believe, if the Supreme Court grants our appeal and agrees to hear the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial Cross case, they will rule once and for all that these veterans memorials should be exempt from the ongoing culture war over religious imagery in public displays.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled the cross unconstitutional in 2011 and the Liberty Institute appealed in 2012.

The Mount Soledad memorial, first built in 1913, is a landmark in San Diego, California. It became a Korean War memorial in the late 1980s after being challenged in court for its display of religious symbols on government property.

Writing for the Washington Post, Brad Hirschfield argues that all concerned — from Liberty Institute to FFRF to ACLU — might all be on the wrong track:

Unfortunately, neither side seems terribly concerned about the real impact of their actions on those who don’t share their beliefs. For the ACLU and FFRF, that has meant a headlong march to strip religious symbols out of locations where their presence brings great comfort and meaning to the families and friends of thousands of fallen heroes. No, not to all, but to many and probably to most.

Don’t get me wrong, the principle of separation of church and state for which the ACLU fights, and the right of people to be free from religious coercion of any kind, are not simply good ideas that also happen to appear in our Constitution. They are bedrock principles without which America would not be America and its citizens would not enjoy the life we do. They are principles which must be defended as much as any border which defines our sense of who we are as a nation. But the question is how that defense is mounted.

He goes on to assert that “securing the rights of some by stripping away those of others is a dicey process, and one for which both the ACLU and FFRF advocate all too easily.”

“They litigate to get rid of things which could often be accommodated, if the human needs and sensitivities were genuinely respected. Unfortunately, they seem to prefer a rather sanctimonious winner-take-all approach,” he adds.

At the same time, Hirschfield wonders if Memorial Day is the best time to wage such religious battles, and faults Liberty Institute for suggesting that those with differing views aren’t equally as concerned about honoring those fallen:

Just as unfortunately, is that with the release of their new music video especially, the Liberty Institute falls into the same trap as their opponents. In fact, whether intentional or not, the lyrics are every bit as arrogant as the actions opposed by the Liberty Institute, and maybe even more offensive.

With the constantly repeated words “I was there” sung as a variety of famous battles are mentioned, the song suggests that those opposed to religious symbolism are somehow less concerned about these battles and how to properly honor those who fell in them. That’s just wrong. Not to mention the threat implicit in suggesting that the ACLU and FFRF should, in the words of the song, “just walk away in the name of peace.” Again, it’s just wrong.

Below is the music video, “Don’t Tear Me Down.” Do you think the timing and message fitting?

Comments (49)

1 2
  • rickc34
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 9:04pm

    It is Gods rules that pertain to murder theft and sexual sins including rape. So if no God why obey the rules. Who would care about what a bunch of little weaklings would say! Only the strong would survive and what about compassion? Wouldn’t that just be over rated feeling? So a doctor or nurse would just put you down like the family pet. Who says what is right and what is wrong and instills morals into our life? GOD that’s who. It is his word we obey not mans they just follow his lead. So regardless God is in charge. And you want seperation? No more Holidays with pay or off for that matter. It is a waste of tax payers money. My family will celebrate in private. Maybe I should look differently at the next athest I take care of. Just kidding. But maybe. Oh I don’t know. We will just have to see. Maybe they will need an enema?

    Report Post »  
  • StonyBurk
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:28pm

    I think Glenn Beck addressed idiots like third A. quite nicely in Glenn Becks Memorial Day commentary. If Third A was the intellect he wishes he was he would be able to understand that
    before he ever was Samuel Adams spoke nicely of his kind.

    Report Post »  
  • chips1
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 6:02pm

    Each Memorial day,“The Star Bangled Banner” is played. Did you know that Sir Francis Scott Key’s mother died and was buried in a family tomb. Grave robbers came in the night to rob it and when they removed the lid, his mother sat up, scaring them away. She was buried prematurely. Sir Francis Scott Key was born a year later.

    Report Post »  
    • ChiefGeorge
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 6:27pm

      You will find Chiefgeorge there at Mt Soledad.

      Report Post » ChiefGeorge  
    • antiprogressive
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 6:39pm

      Per a related Email I received – this is what Maine’s Gov. LePage would have to say about it.
      And I agree.

      “THE LAW IS THE LAW So ”if“ the US government determines that it is against the law for the words ”under God” to be on our money, then, so be it.

      And “if” that same government decides that the “Ten Commandments” are not to be used in or on a government installation, then, so be it.

      I say, “so be it,” because I would like to be a law abiding US citizen.

      I say, “so be it,” because I would like to think that smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions.

      I would like to think that those people have the American public’s best interests at heart.

      BUT, he said, “YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I’D LIKE?

      Since we can’t pray to God, can’t Trust in God and cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings, I don’t believe Government (Federal, State and Local) and its employees should participate in Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of American life.

      I’d like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter. After all, it’s just another day.

      I’d like the” US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as well as Sundays.“ After all our Government says it should be just another day”.

      There’s more – but not room enough to post it all here.
      You get the point.

      Report Post »  
  • ALL4FREEDOM
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 4:57pm

    The 9th Circuit is, as usual, wrong. Any act by private citizens that is legal on private land is equally legal on public land, because said private citizens have an equal access to said public land. Opponents have an equal right NOT to participate, but they have NO standing to prohibit what is otherwise legal (not to mention Constitutionally protected) activity on public land. That’s just rude. If opponents have an objection to a religious display on public land, they are perfectly free to NOT PUT ONE UP, or else to erect their own polite and tasteful secular display. Just don’t be rude about it. Let‘s call it ’good citizenship’.

    Report Post »  
    • The Third Archon
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 5:14pm

      Actually it is PRECISELY the DIFFERENCE between PRIVATE and PUBLIC land that is the problem–there are a potentially INFINITE number of religions and only a finite amount of space with which to satisfy their private expression. As such, aside from the Constitutional prohibition of public resources going to support any religious persuasion (either for or against), it is a PRACTICAL impossibility to do anything other than equally bar ALL religious persuasions from the use of PUBLIC resources (including land) if one wants to be JUST and EQUAL in one’s treatment of religion under the law.

      Report Post » The Third Archon  
    • drenfroe
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 7:42pm

      I agree with your post and as far as enough public land, there’s never been a problem until Obama took office and al the troublmaking started. Live and let live.

      Report Post »  
  • shogun459
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 4:34pm

    Just wait till they demand San Diego, Saint Diego, change it’s name and any other city that reflects a
    Christian background.

    Hey their going after sports teams what makes any of you think they will ever stop?

    When have they stopped in the past. This is religous intolerance at its nastiest, back stabbers.

    Report Post » shogun459  
    • chips1
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 6:13pm

      I lived in San Diego since 1947 and on Otay Mountain there is nothing. That nothingness promotes the beliefs of the ACLU and FFRP.

      Report Post »  
  • shogun459
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 4:29pm

    Dont let the left frame the arguement,

    This is not about freedom FROM religion It’s about ATTACKING the Christian Religion and any evidence of it.

    Report Post » shogun459  
    • The Third Archon
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 5:22pm

      It’s about neither of those things–it’s about Non Establishment. There is no “freedom from religion”–that’s just a clever little play on words used by the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” who are, yes, lobbyists for atheist interests. But the text of the Constitution neither says “freedom FROM” or “freedom OF” religion–what it DOES say is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In other words, the PUBLIC authority must remain neutral on matters of religious persuasion, while PRIVATE citizens, the People, have the right to exercise in their PRIVATE capacities, using their PRIVATE resources, whatever beliefs and actions they feel are in accordance with their religious persuasion, free from coercion or control by the PUBLIC authority SO LONG AS they respect the justly constituted legitimate laws THEREOF in exercising this right.

      The Third Archon  
  • shogun459
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 4:22pm

    What’s the Difference between the Taliban blowing up religious monuments that they hate and the left making us take down our long standing religous monuments.

    NOTHING

    With fiends like these we will soon have no religous monuments in this country.
    Obama and friends will be well on their way to re-writing our history as his wife told us was Obama’s intent.

    Report Post » shogun459  
    • Bryan B
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 4:56pm

      @shogun459
      Luke 21

      7And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass? 8And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them. 9But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.
      10Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: 11And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.
      12But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name’s sake. 13And it shall turn to you for a testimony. 14Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: 15For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist. 16And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. 17And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake. 18But there shall not an hair of your head perish. 19In your patience possess ye your souls.

      Report Post » Bryan B  
  • Zurich
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 4:02pm

    I don’t understand why the display of a Cross should be declared unconstitutional unless you want to attack Christianity for political reasons and make a wrong interpretation of the freedom of religion to support a certain agenda. I wonder why these so called atheists don’t ever attack Islam or islamic symbols that we have all over the Country. I am sure that they don’t do that, because of political reasons The truth is that some atheists are useful idiots and/or infiltrated by communists who want to attack Christianity. This is the real deal and as long as we don’t recognize their strategy we won’t be able to fight for our rights, being one of them, to worship precious symbols like the cross. Our forefathers crossed the ocean to be free and brought the Cross with them. If any atheist or muslim wants to remove Crosses, he or she can swim back.
    Furthemore I don’t understand why only the atheists and muslims have rights. Every single time that they feel offended, we have to step back and remove Crosses, Christmas Trees and Nativitys. I am of the opinion that their rights end exactly at the point where our rights begin. Why should we give up our religious symbols? Neither our religion nor our symbols are offensive and if they think that they are, we should sue them for discrimination. Especially this naughty student Jessica A. is a typical example of a pathetic manipulation and she is definitely not right. She just cares about herself, feels excluded, ostracized a

    Report Post »  
    • shogun459
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 4:25pm

      Because they are Anit-Christian.

      Obama say this is not a Christian Nation as he and the left set out to remove all evidence that it is.

      The only reason this is working is because we can’t force ourselves to believe it is happening here, now and to us.

      “This way to the gas chamber ladies and gentlemen” Good book sorry you may have to live it.

      Report Post » shogun459  
  • dougindeap
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:57pm

    The video expresses the offense that some may feel about removal of governmental religious monuments. As it happens, now retired Justice Stevens addressed just that type of concern in the recent case concerning a Mojave Desert cross maintained on government land. At the outset of his opinion, he stated: “I certainly agree that the Nation should memorialize the service of those who fought and died in World War I, but it cannot lawfully do so by continued endorsement of a starkly sectarian message.” Later in his opinion, he discussed the understandable concern that removal of the cross might offend some. Noting that Justice Alito spoke of “avoiding the disturbing symbolism associated with the destruction of the historic monument,” he stated: “But we surely all can agree that once the government has violated the Establishment Clause, as has been adjudged in this case and is now beyond question, a plaintiff must be afforded a complete remedy. That remedy may sometimes require removing a religious symbol, and regrettably some number of people may perceive the remedy as evidence that the government “is bent on eliminating from all public places and symbols any trace of our country’s religious heritage,” [Alito's opinion, p. 4]. But it does not follow that the government can decline to cure an Establishment Clause violation in order to avoid offense.”

    Report Post »  
  • ICEDRAGONNITE
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:43pm

    Go after the judges that are legislating from the bench There is no separation of church and states unless you are reading from the Communist Manifesto.

    Report Post » ICEDRAGONNITE  
  • AmazingGrace8
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:33pm

    Just a few thoughts on various statements that have been made in the past 3.5 yrs. Pelosi, “draining the swamp”, Mrs. Obama, “we must change our speech, change our traditions etc. (fill in the Hope & Change themes). Before a “new-wave” can happen, “out with the old & in with the new”. A “new” foundation is being created for the “New World Order” to be built here in America. Just think what our ancestors did by “clearing-away” whatever obstacles were in their way to build up this country. What is being done is the “tearing-down-&-clearing-away“ to bring on the ”new” way of life in America. Many people have made this comment over these 4 yrs and I have become a believer that America is being attacked and…..THE WORLD WATCHES & WAITS. God help us!

    Report Post »  
  • Git-R-Done
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:23pm

    How come I‘m not offended whenever Jewish religious symbols are displayed on government property and I’m not Jewish?

    FFRF, ACLU, and the rest of these left wing kooks need to get a thicker skin.

    Report Post »  
  • ContinentalArmy
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:19pm

    The F’N ACLU is what needs torn down! Not the Veteran’s Memorials! Enough of the turn the other cheek, it’s time to return the favor loud and clear!

    Report Post »  
    • MAMMY_NUNN
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 5:01pm

      It’s time to start holding Town Hall meetings and provide some Democracy if someone in the community is offended and the majority is not then those that are offended should be banished from the community so they may find residence more suiting to their wishes. If they moved into a community that had a known monument they have nothing to complain about.

      Report Post »  
  • The Third Archon
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:09pm

    “Just as unfortunately, is that with the release of their new music video especially, the Liberty Institute falls into the same trap as their opponents. In fact, whether intentional or not, the lyrics are every bit as arrogant as the actions opposed by the Liberty Institute, and maybe even more offensive.
    With the constantly repeated words “I was there” sung as a variety of famous battles are mentioned, the song suggests that those opposed to religious symbolism are somehow less concerned about these battles and how to properly honor those who fell in them. That’s just wrong. Not to mention the threat implicit in suggesting that the ACLU and FFRF should, in the words of the song, “just walk away in the name of peace.” Again, it’s just wrong.”
    More importantly, it’s FACTUALLY incorrect–our soldiers don’t die for Christianity, they die for America.

    Report Post » The Third Archon  
    • Git-R-Done
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:20pm

      Then don‘t look at the cross if you’re offended by it. This lawsuit is about people like you being offended, not for the Constitution or for this country.

      Report Post »  
    • The Third Archon
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:40pm

      That’s a cute opinion–it’s factually unsubstantiated.

      The Constitution prohibits the endorsement of ANY religious persuasion by the public authority–that INCLUDES the war memorials paid for by our government meant to represent the WHOLE People, not JUST the Christians. There ARE no practical alternatives–every potential religious view CANNOT be simultaneously pleased, and I imagine those who wrote the Constitution knew this, but even if they didn’t, they are HARDLY neutral parties to which to appeal for an interpretation on this point (being almost all Christians)–the only JUST and LEGITIMATE thing for the public authority in a PLURALISTIC society to do then, is to remain neutral on the question of religious persuasion.

      Report Post » The Third Archon  
    • PATTY HENRY
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:44pm

      Anyone who doesn’t understand that GOD is the Creator of the Universe and that our Cross is our way of showing respect for our GOD, whose only Son, Jesus, came down to earth to die for our sins and open the door to Heaven. I‘m sorry for those who don’t believe that. Maybe some day there may be an ‘ah-ha‘ moment when these poor snooks finally ’get it’ but they have NO RIGHT to deny US the ability to display this symbol of our Faith/our Respect. We don’t say take down (name it ) symbol. We’ve never tried to stop others for expressing themselves either. Those who do are just nuts. What??? DO YOU WANT TO LIVE in an all vanilla world? No freedom? I’m sorry but you make me sick. I’m sorry that soldiers had to die for your rights to try to deny theirs. THERE ARE 75% of us vs. 21% of you liberal freaks. Put up your own symbol or shut up.

      Report Post » PATTY HENRY  
    • The Third Archon
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:53pm

      @PATTY HENRY
      If it’s so important to you then DO IT ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY. There are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CHURCHES ACROSS AMERICA–you have AMPLE space to erect as many crosses as you think it takes to please God.

      All that is REQUIRED of you under the laws of the United States, is that you not use the PUBLIC authority and resources (which represent MORE than just Christians) to do this.

      It’s not the crosses that is the problem–it’s HOW and WHERE they are placed that IS the problem. I don’t know what about that is so hard for theists to understand–but then theism isn‘t exactly a test of one’s REASONING faculties…it should come as no surprise then that those faculties are stagnant in most theists.

      Report Post » The Third Archon  
  • American.Covenate
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:03pm

    The US Constitution, the law of our land addresses the separation of Church and State, not God and State. The founding fathers all knew and deeply understood the difference. I consider the atheist‘s constant attack on this nation’s Christian values a hate crime.

    Report Post »  
  • The Third Archon
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 2:57pm

    “He goes on to assert that “securing the rights of some by stripping away those of others is a dicey process, and one for which both the ACLU and FFRF advocate all too easily.”

    “They litigate to get rid of things which could often be accommodated, if the human needs and sensitivities were genuinely respected. Unfortunately, they seem to prefer a rather sanctimonious winner-take-all approach,” he adds.”
    ********–show me ONE example where the theists (ALWAYS Christians in this country) have been asked nicely and done A DAMN thing to respect alternative beliefs.

    The naked and ugly truth is that it is the CHRISTIANS who are arrogantly disrespectful of any and all dissenting belief–although it shouldn’t come as a surprise from people who are sheltered for the majority (if not all) of their life FROM any alternative religious persuasions than their own.

    Report Post » The Third Archon  
    • Git-R-Done
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:21pm

      So it’s disrespectful to express freedom of speech or freedom of religion b/c people like you get offended by it? LOL

      Get a thicker skin.

      Report Post »  
    • The Third Archon
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:42pm

      Your PRIVATE freedom of religion and/or speech does not extend to the liberty to have the PUBLIC authority ENDORSE your particular religious opinion symbolically (such as in this case) or in any other way. You are the one who seems to have an inferiority complex–is your religion SO WEAK that it CANNOT survive without government endorsements and proselytism?

      Report Post » The Third Archon  
    • StonyBurk
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 8:21pm

      Three A is IGNORANT of the meaning of the terms used in our First amendment Ignorant of the history of the Amendment –and If he she it could show me where the first amendment says squat about government endorsement of religion I might reconsider my opinion of the big mouth ignoramus.

      Report Post »  
  • The Third Archon
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 2:47pm

    “The Mount Soledad memorial, first built in 1913, is a landmark in San Diego, California. It became a Korean War memorial in the late 1980s after being challenged in court for its display of religious symbols on government property.”
    So…only Christian soldiers fought and died in the Korean War? Because I DOUBT that. The REASON this country is WORTH fighting for, the REASON we cherish our several of our specific civil liberties, is BECAUSE we aren’t a “Christian Nation” or a “Jewish Nation” or an “Atheist Nation”–it is because we are a nation of CHOICE. And our nation of many should not be represented by the partisan symbolic imagery of ONE particular religious persuasion.

    Report Post » The Third Archon  
    • Git-R-Done
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:22pm

      So we should tear it down so that thin skinned atheists like you don’t get offended.

      Too bad, freedom of speech and freedom of religion trump over your not getting offended.

      Report Post »  
    • The Third Archon
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 3:46pm

      If it’s on public lands and/or paid for with public money–YES, that’s EXACTLY what is required by the Constitution.

      And I know you may forget that other religions exist, being a believer of ONE of them, but I will remind you that YOU are in the MINORITY of religious persuasions in the world–MORE people think your religion is FALSE than TRUE on this Earth. And it is not MERELY the irreligious whose equal participation in American society you disrespect with your arrogant demand for public endorsement of YOUR religious persuasion–it is EVERY OTHER RELIGIOUS PERSUASION TO, from Jews, to Muslims, to Hindus, to Taoists, to Animists, to Wiccans, to Satanists, to Shintoists, to Buddhists, and on and on and on…

      Report Post » The Third Archon  
  • Zuitsuit
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 2:27pm

    you send thousands to die to protect false non christian religions and then want to save a pitiful little Christian cross?

    Report Post »  
  • momrules
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 2:09pm

    There are three great religeous battles going on right now in America.

    The Muslims are waging war to instill their religeon and Sharia law across America..
    The atheists are waging war to remove Christianity from America.
    Obama is waging a war against religeous freedom in America.
    They are each using the courts to wage their warfare.

    The timing of this song is perfect.

    Report Post »  
  • RedManWalking
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 2:08pm

    Here is my song for Our great American Heroes.

    SEND US DOWN MORE LOVE
    Words & music by RedManWalking 1988

    I’ve been thinking about something
    To pull people back together again
    Looking for the right answers
    To unite all Americans

    I know that’s an impossible task
    For anyone to even simply ask
    Let’s think back how it all began
    Maybe we can find an answer then

    They had faith they loved their freedom
    They were seeking only peace
    The greatest laws they gave to US let people worship as they please
    Ask the Lord above
    Send US down more love

    When we really think about it
    Courage is our claim to fame
    And the ultimate sacrifices
    Of Our Brave Women and Men

    Yes they have served their country well
    Cause peace reigns ore the land in which we dwell
    Listen hear their voice in history
    Give meaning why the died to keep US free

    They had faith ……………..

    Countless are the reason
    Endless are the rhymes
    Through the changing of the seasons
    Ore the shifting sands of time
    America a time and place to be
    Working hard for the family
    Remember back how it all began
    Maybe we can find an answer then

    They had faith ………………….

    Report Post »  
  • SFsuper49er
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 2:05pm

    They want all religious signs taken down because it reminds them of all the wickedness they do day in and day out and it bothers them. That’s the real reason.

    Report Post »  
  • dontbotherme
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 1:55pm

    Why? Why can’t the ACLU just leave it alone? I know they are trying to wipe God & any reference to Him out of the public eye, but they will never succeed in this. God will prevail. Enough. It is time to say, “No. We will not comply”.

    Report Post »  
    • RepubliCorp
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 2:18pm

      They replaced lab-rats with lawyers because there are somethings rats wont do……….

      Report Post » RepubliCorp  
  • COFemale
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 1:50pm

    Love the song. Appropriate and yes came at the right time. Bless this singer.

    Report Post » COFemale  
  • TSUNAMI-22
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 1:46pm

    Do us veterans and patriots need to post 24/7 armed guards on these sites?

    WTF is wrong with people these days?

    Leave the dang crosses alone and go about your business destroying the rest of society with your “open mindlessness” elsewhere.

    Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 1:59pm

      I think sadly the answer is YES … and I would gladly join the veterans in doing so!

      Report Post »  
  • nighttrainno9
    Posted on May 28, 2012 at 1:44pm

    I really wish the idiots from the ACLU and their minions would
    leave mainstrem America alone. The majority of this country is
    Christian and if they don’t like it they could choose some other
    place to live. Believe me, you atheists, queers and whatever,
    we don‘t need you and we really don’t want you in our country
    and if you push the issue you will have a battle you can not
    survive. So go back in the closet where you belong.

    Report Post »  
    • The Third Archon
      Posted on May 28, 2012 at 5:41pm

      “I really wish the idiots from the ACLU and their minions would
      leave mainstrem America alone.”
      LOL–they won’t so long as the “mainstream” (by which I assume you mean “the majority”) continue to take actions that are unconstitutional, and quite frankly stupid.

      “The majority of this country is
      Christian”
      For now–that’s changing. And you are a minority in the world.

      “and if they don’t like it they could choose some other
      place to live.”
      Aside from being an un-American and fascist sentiment, show me where the constitution says “this country was founded for, and only for, whatever majority can be cobbled together at any given point in time”.

      “Believe me, you atheists, queers and whatever,
      we don‘t need you”
      Far more than you realize.

      “and we really don’t want you in our country”
      I’m sorry, again, where exactly does it say in the constitution that the country belongs solely to whatever “majority” happens to exist at any particular point in time? For that matter, if your GOAL is to live in a country that reflects your values and beliefs a much easier and quicker way would be for YOU to move to Russia.

      “and if you push the issue you will have a battle you can not
      survive. So go back in the closet where you belong.”
      LOL–bring it on, weakling. The last Civil War ended REALLY well for conservatives…

      Report Post » The Third Archon  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love