After Christians Forced to Tear Down Cross – They Slam California City With 1 Strong Move
A California club is fighting to get its cross back on what they say is their private property after an atheist group campaigned for it to be removed.
“The City’s public statements and actions have been hostile and targeted the Christian cross because [of] its religious message,” the petition, filed on March 22, said. “The City Council lacked neutrality and attacked the cross and the Lions for its free exercise of religion and free speech.”
“If there was a giant LGBT flag or something like that, this city would embrace it. No problem. So it’s specifically because of the viewpoint and the religious viewpoint and perspective of the cross. That’s their agenda,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI).
The conservative legal defense organization based in California filed a petition for relief after the City of Albany removed the cross in June 2023. The cross stood for 50 years prior to its removal.
A devout Christian originally asked the Albany Lions Club to build and maintain a large lighted steel and plexiglass cross on his private land. During the Christmas and Easter seasons the lighted cross was visible for miles. The Lions Club said this sent “its message of God’s love and as a comfort to the Christian community.”
The action against the Lions Club cross has been brewing for years. Dacus said city officials have openly expressed how they wanted to take down the cross.
Fromer mayor Aaron Tiedemann, who is associated with the Green Party and now an Albany City Council member, said the city “put its money where its mouth is” by removing the cross. He said a small group of people “had such privilege for so long” and them having to get used to not having the cross is a “real benefit.”
Dacus said the city is using eminent domain to claim ownership over the private property and legitimize removing the cross.
“The takings clause doesn’t allow the government to take property because they don’t like the religious speech,” he said. “If they could get away with this, make no mistake, then they could get away with taking down a church with eminent domain, or any other kind of religious entity or organization. And, of course, we all know that the Constitution forbids that.”
Dacus said his team is prepared to take the issue all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. He encouraged people to be aware of who they elect to office who might promote a “leftist extremist ideology” that works to oppress freedom of religion.
“The City’s public statements and actions have been hostile and targeted the Christian cross because [of] its religious message,” the petition, filed on March 22, said. “The City Council lacked neutrality and attacked the cross and the Lions for its free exercise of religion and free speech.”
“If there was a giant LGBT flag or something like that, this city would embrace it. No problem. So it’s specifically because of the viewpoint and the religious viewpoint and perspective of the cross. That’s their agenda,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI).
The conservative legal defense organization based in California filed a petition for relief after the City of Albany removed the cross in June 2023. The cross stood for 50 years prior to its removal.
A devout Christian originally asked the Albany Lions Club to build and maintain a large lighted steel and plexiglass cross on his private land. During the Christmas and Easter seasons the lighted cross was visible for miles. The Lions Club said this sent “its message of God’s love and as a comfort to the Christian community.”
The action against the Lions Club cross has been brewing for years. Dacus said city officials have openly expressed how they wanted to take down the cross.
Fromer mayor Aaron Tiedemann, who is associated with the Green Party and now an Albany City Council member, said the city “put its money where its mouth is” by removing the cross. He said a small group of people “had such privilege for so long” and them having to get used to not having the cross is a “real benefit.”
Dacus said the city is using eminent domain to claim ownership over the private property and legitimize removing the cross.
“The takings clause doesn’t allow the government to take property because they don’t like the religious speech,” he said. “If they could get away with this, make no mistake, then they could get away with taking down a church with eminent domain, or any other kind of religious entity or organization. And, of course, we all know that the Constitution forbids that.”
Dacus said his team is prepared to take the issue all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. He encouraged people to be aware of who they elect to office who might promote a “leftist extremist ideology” that works to oppress freedom of religion.
70-79, M
