Crosses still being fought

I know that the ACLU gains payment from the federal taxpayers every time it wins a case. That, alone, should be enough to encourage outrage from taxpayers. Oh, yeah, the only reason that a taxpayer can legally sue to government is when government money sent to religious institutions.

Clearly, ACLU is not a religious institution. And, they needed money to sue government entities over racial discrimination, etc. Good, so far. So, they began to receive reimbursement, as I understand it, for their legal fees when they won a case against the government. I know, the loser pays all. I get that. But here, the loser is ALWAYS the taxpayer (you and me) because the government only gets $$ through taxes (and some investment, I suppose). So, WE are paying the ACLU to sue the government (us) for any entanglement of government and religion.

However, there are those who think that ACLU lawsuits with the goal to rip down/cover up/dismantle crosses that have been on display in public parks and public cemeteries and courts and court-house lawns, etc for DECADES is going a tad bit too far.

How do you like paying the ACLU to try to remove the
Soledad Cross in San Diego? Do you like how your taxpayer dollars are going?

Just remember: do not give/sell any of your land to any government entity as a park/library/whatever if that land has any religious symbol on it. You are putting the taxpayers at risk of (1) having to pay for the defense of the religious symbol in a suit by the ACLU, (2) having to sell the property to a private individual or corporation to protect the religious symbol from a suit by the ACLU, and (3) losing a (potentially cherished) symbol from public view and enjoyment. All that is needed is one activist atheist and the ACLU.