Lets here it for this guy standing up to ACLU

[zr700]

http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=133211


Responding to ACLU challenge against Reading, Cumru Township man displays own cross near city
Reading Eagle

There's a new lighted cross on the mountain next to Reading.

This one is on Neversink.

It's a response to demands by two groups that the city remove its own cross from the William Penn Memorial Fire Tower on Mount Penn.

"I've had enough of the ACLU," said Cyril Ganter, who said he missed Palm Sunday services to make the 6-foot-by-8-foot lighted cross on a flagpole on his property, which is just outside the city in Cumru Township.

Ganter's home is on a bluff at Neversink's western end. The cross is visible to the city below. He said he will keep it lit through Easter.

Ganter acknowledged his cross is small but said it's what he could make on short notice.

"If the situation keeps up, there'll be a bigger cross next year," he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Appignani Humanist Legal Center have threatened to sue the city in federal court because Mayor Tom McMahon ignored their demands to immediately take down the fire tower cross, up since 1959.

"That cross has been there since I was born," said Ganter, who calls himself a conservative Republican. "This country is getting too liberal."

With the economy in bad shape, he said, taxpayer money could be put to better use than fighting a court battle over a cross.

[wis bang]

Good for him, I hope others do the same...have one in any directionthe ACLU cares to look!

[SilentRage]

Kudos to Mr. Ganter ...

[7998]

Good for them, screw the American Communist Liberties Union.
I hope the cross is bigger next year.

[Kimba]

Was this William Penn Memorial Fire Tower on Mount Penn. public or city owned property. They can't tell a homeowner to take down a cross on his own property but if it public land, they can stick their noses in.

[imperialism2024]

So why didn't this guy offer to put a cross on his own property in the first place? He didn't stand up to the ACLU so much as comply with the ACLU in a way that satisfies both the ACLU's interests as well as his own interests. Local Christians get to see a cross in a prominent location, yet taxpayer money isn't being used to support that religious symbol. Sounds like a win-win to me.

How about this plan: if a municipality wants to put up religious symbols of any kind, then those citizens who don't share that religion aren't required to pay local taxes. I get the feeling that it would cut down significantly on municipality-sponsored religious support.

Take this debate and apply it the "using taxpayer money to fund abortions" debate, and see how high you rank on the Political Hypocrisy Meter.

[lildobe]

Lest we forget the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which has been incorporated under the 14th, so it does apply to the states and localities...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

This seems to say to me that is is not the place of ANY government agency to promote one religion over another, and that in this case, the ACLU was correct. If someone wants to erect a cross on their private property, that's their business. But it's not the place of a government agency to be using public money to display a religious symbol.

You can't pick and choose what parts of the Constitution that you want to respect.

(I know I'm going to get flamed for this opinion - but that's the way I read it)