War Memorial Going to Supreme Court

[mscriv]

Sad story in my opinion. :(

Remembering is what a group of veterans had in mind in 1934 when they erected a simple memorial in the shape of a cross to honor 53,000 Americans who had died in battle during our nation's 19-month involvement in what was called the "War to End All Wars." Seventy-five years later, the U.S. Supreme Court will determine whether that gesture of respect violates the U.S. Constitution's separation of church and state.


Full Story Here (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/25/mojave-veterans-memorial/).

[themoonisdown09]

That's just ridiculous. Leave it alone.

[leekohler]

Yeah- it's not a big deal. It's not as if it's in a courthouse or anything.

[kavika411]

I lean towards the momorial being taken down, but that's only after reading that one commentary and knowing nothing else about the story.

[redwarrior]

That is very sad indeed. Some people have too much time on their hands. :mad:

[themoonisdown09]

I lean towards the momorial being taken down, but that's only after reading that one commentary and knowing nothing else about the story.

May I ask why you think it should be taken down? Maybe you'd feel different if you had relatives that died and are being honored with the memorial.

[iShater]

Are they proposing replacing the cross with something else as a memorial?

[kavika411]

May I ask why you think it should be taken down? Maybe you'd feel different if you had relatives that died and are being honored with the memorial.

Because I don't like religious symbolism on state property. I didn't like it when I argued motions in front of Judge Roy Moore with his Ten Commandments on the wall behind him, and I won't like it one day day when Christians are in the minority and the religion-of-the-month is sticking symbols here and there.

You suggest I'd feel different if I had relatives who died and are being honored with the memorial. Last time I check, my grandfather landed at Normandy on D-Day. Do I like, however, to make emotion-based decisions on policy? No.

Best I can tell that memorial could simply be shifted to private land.

[Sky Blue]

Take it down and replace it with a non-religious memorial.

[themoonisdown09]

You suggest I'd feel different if I had relatives who died and are being honored with the memorial. Last time I check, my grandfather landed at Normandy on D-Day. Do I like, however, to make emotion-based decisions on policy? No.

Best I can tell that memorial could simply be shifted to private land.

So I guess the World War II Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial in Normandy, France bothers you also? (I realize this is not in the US, but still)

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a391/misscharbean3/FRANCE%20TRIP%202006/Day%204/100_1684.jpg

[leekohler]

Because I don't like religious symbolism on state property. I didn't like it when I argued motions in front of Judge Roy Moore with his Ten Commandments on the wall behind him, and I won't like it one day day when Christians are in the minority and the religion-of-the-month is sticking symbols here and there.

You suggest I'd feel different if I had relatives who died and are being honored with the memorial. Last time I check, my grandfather landed at Normandy on D-Day. Do I like, however, to make emotion-based decisions on policy? No.

Best I can tell that memorial could simply be shifted to private land.

Roy Moore was intentionally trying to inject religion into government. This memorial probably had a lot less to do with religion and was more likely just what was more common and seemed appropriate at the time. I don't see a problem here.

[kavika411]

So I guess the World War II Normandy-American Cemetery and Memorial in Normandy, France bothers you also??

There are things that bother me, and things that don't. This thread is about that one memorial. Like I said, it appears to be something that could easily be shifted to private land. I may be mistaken, but I don't think the American Cemetery and Memorial in Normandy can be easily shifted to, for example, a farm in Georgia or Alabama.

[themoonisdown09]

There are things that bother me, and things that don't. This thread is about that one memorial. Like I said, it appears to be something that could easily be shifted to private land. I may be mistaken, but I don't think the American Cemetery and Memorial in Normandy can be easily shifted to, for example, a farm in Georgia or Alabama.

What's the problem with it being on public land? I don't think that just because laws have changed over the years, that we need to go taking down memorials.

[kavika411]

Roy Moore was intentionally trying to inject religion into government. This memorial probably had a lot less to do with religion and was more likely just what was more common and seemed appropriate at the time. I don't see a problem here.

Again, back to my first sentence, I lean against it based solely on that one commentary. I know nothing else about it. Will it keep me up at night? No. Do I try to be consistent in my belief that I don't want religious symbolism on state property? Yes.

[kavika411]

What's the problem with it being on public land?

Because it is, as you correctly point out, public land. There are ways to honor veterans without religious symbolism. Am I wrong? That is not a rhetorical question.

[themoonisdown09]

Because it is, as you correctly point out, public land. There are ways to honor veterans without religious symbolism. Am I wrong? That is not a rhetorical question.

Yes, there are ways to honor veterans without religious symbolism, but there's no reason to change what was put up 75 years ago as a memorial. I can see if this was something that was in the middle of being constructed, then by all means, fight for them to change it.

The fact that it's been there for this long and people are just now wanting it moved/replaced only because it uses a religious symbol is silly to me.

[Rodimus Prime]

I think it would be stupid and petty to take it down. The intent of the Memorial is not religious and that much is clear.

Also there already is a case like this that went to the Supreme Court. It was something Vs. some city in Texas or State of Texas. that had a memorial/monument in front of the court house with a bible in it on display.

The memorial has nothing to do with religion. It did have a lot to do with the person it represented and all the good that one person did and that was in how they go some feeding the homeless programs going and a lot of things like that.

Guess what the city/State won because it was proven the memorial/monument was not representing religion. All the state has to prove is it is intended purpose is to represent the fallen heroes from WWI. Taking it down would be a decrease to the people who died in WWI.

The case I am talking about happened about the same time as the 10 commandment case happened and the media gave little attention to it because it did not draw as much fire because it was so quite and not as drawn out. But fact stands prove it is not there for religious reasons and there to represent fallen heroes and it find to be on public land.

[kavika411]

The fact that it's been there for this long and people are just now wanting it moved/replaced only because it uses a religious symbol is silly to me.

That is a point on which we will disagree. It is either important that it is based upon religious symbolism - 75 years worth - or it is not. If it is the former, we bump up against the establishment clause; if it is the latter, then it is a non-issue that it be moved or stipped of the religious symbolism. It can't be both.

[mactastic]

That is very sad indeed. Some people have too much time on their hands. :mad:
I would say the same thing about those who spent their time authoring California's Prop 8. :mad:

Now, on this topic, I'm in agreement with Kavika. Is it a huge deal that's going to keep me up at night? Certainly not, and I'm not offended by the use of religious imagery in that memorial. But on general principal, I don't support religious iconography on public property. It just opens up a whole can of worms that I don't think people want to open.

If we allow a Christian group to erect a monument with their religious symbols, why can a Satanist group not do the same? Or Wiccans, or Norse Pagans, or Hindus, or Muslims, or Pastafarians? Would any of the Christians here feel comfortable entering the courtroom of a judge who displayed Koranic verses on the courtroom walls? Would you feel like that person was an unbiased arbiter of the law? Do you really want to see the Wiccan pentacle or the Satanist's goat horns adorning a public monument? Do you want your tax dollars spent providing upkeep for religious iconography not of the Christian faith?

Once you put the shoe on the other foot, it becomes obvious why it's simply not acceptable. But of course, far too many Christians take the short view of things, and interpret this as an attack on their faith; when in reality it is to protect them from eventually suffering the same fate as all other religious minorities currently suffer under their majority.

[leekohler]

That is a point on which we will disagree. It is either important that it is based upon religious symbolism - 75 years worth - or it is not. If it is the former, we bump up against the establishment clause; if it is the latter, then it is a non-issue that it be moved or stipped of the religious symbolism. It can't be both.

Fine- take it down. But I think this is pettiness at it's worst.

[mscriv]

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the image of a cross also commonly viewed as symbolism about death or the loss of life. Sure it can have Christian meaning, but the cross has been a symbol long before it was given specific Christian context. For example, lots of people where cross jewelry but don't have any specific religious views or intend it for that purpose.

Maybe I'm being naive, but I just think sometimes common sense has to prevail. As someone else mentioned the purpose of the memorial was not to send a religious message, but to honor those who served.

Ultimately, I think the bigger picture of precedent is what it truly being argued in this case. If this decision sets forth that all symbols which can be interpreted as having religious meaning must be removed then a lot of things will have to change, starting with Arlington Memorial Cemetery, one of our greatest national war memorials.

[bbotte]

So I guess the World War II Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial in Normandy, France bothers you also? (I realize this is not in the US, but still)

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a391/misscharbean3/FRANCE%20TRIP%202006/Day%204/100_1684.jpg

I'm not christian, but my great uncle was and is buried there, Shot down over paris. I got to stand on his grave and place some flowers. I was honored to stand there and see his cross with his name in it. Didn't bother me a bit. Some day I hope my daughter will make the trip.

[themoonisdown09]

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the image of a cross also commonly viewed as symbolism about death or the loss of life. Sure it can have Christian meaning, but the cross has been a symbol long before it was given specific Christian context. For example, lots of people where cross jewelry but don't have any specific religious views or intend it for that purpose.

I got this from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross):


It is not known when the first cross image was made; after circles, crosses are one of the first symbols drawn by children of all cultures. There are many cross-shaped incisions in European cult caves, dating back to the earliest stages of human cultural development in the stone age. Like other symbols from this period, their use continued in the Celtic and Germanic cultures in Europe. For example, celtic coins minted many centuries before the Christian era may have an entire side showing this type of cross, sometimes with the cardinal points marked by concave depressions in the same style as in stone age carvings. Other coins may be showing the cross held by a rider on a horse and springing forth a fern leaf, sometimes identified as a Tree of Life symbol.

[mactastic]

Fine- take it down. But I think this is pettiness at it's worst.
Maybe we could cut the cross piece off of it, and call it a "civil cross". It would have all the same rights and access to legal equality as a traditional cross, but wouldn't defile what some of us consider to be a sacred commitment against getting their church in my state. ;)

[Peace]

Because I don't like religious symbolism on state property. I didn't like it when I argued motions in front of Judge Roy Moore with his Ten Commandments on the wall behind him, and I won't like it one day day when Christians are in the minority and the religion-of-the-month is sticking symbols here and there.

You suggest I'd feel different if I had relatives who died and are being honored with the memorial. Last time I check, my grandfather landed at Normandy on D-Day. Do I like, however, to make emotion-based decisions on policy? No.

Best I can tell that memorial could simply be shifted to private land.

I understand your legal view however that little cross is in the middle of the desert and not on state land. It's in a federal Preserve.
Now I believe strongly in the separation of church and state. I'm also a veteran as was my father as was his father.
I could understand the desire to remove it had it been on the lawn of a capitol or someplace in a HIGH public view but get real. This thing is in the middle of a desert. Use some common sense.

Leave it alone.

[kavika411]

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the image of a cross also commonly viewed as symbolism about death or the loss of life. Sure it can have Christian meaning, but the cross has been a symbol long before it was given specific Christian context. For example, lots of people where cross jewelry but don't have any specific religious views or intend it for that purpose.

Good point. However, the Swastika - for example - has a history reaching into everything from Buddhism to Native American culture long before Hitler's use of it. In the same way that the cross may have some non-Christian origins, so does the Swastika. Does that non-Christian/non-Nazi imagery - respectively - make it more palatable when used on state property? Perhaps to others, but not to me.

[mactastic]

I could understand the desire to remove it had it been on the lawn of a capitol or someplace in a HIGH public view but get real. This thing is in the middle of a desert. Use some common sense.

Leave it alone.

I'd actually be fine with that, just so long as it wasn't used as a precedent for other, higher-profile, religious symbols. IOW, if religious groups wouldn't point to this and say "well, they left that cross in the remote desert alone, so they should also leave these 10 commandments on the courthouse walls alone too".

[kavika411]

I understand your legal view however that little cross is in the middle of the desert and not on state land. It's in a federal Preserve.
Now I believe strongly in the separation of church and state. I'm also a veteran as was my father as was his father.
I could understand the desire to remove it had it been on the lawn of a capitol or someplace in a HIGH public view but get real. This thing is in the middle of a desert. Use some common sense.

It is either state land or private land. If I am mistaken and it is not state land, then I have no issue with it. If it is state land, then I am being consistent which, some might argue, is a form of common sense, as opposed to letting my emotions get the best of me.

[Peace]

I'd actually be fine with that, just so long as it wasn't used as a precedent for other, higher-profile, religious symbols. IOW, if religious groups wouldn't point to this and say "well, they left that cross in the remote desert alone, so they should also leave these 10 commandments on the courthouse walls alone too".

I agree with that. Like I said. The mitigating factor is the location in a desert and NOT in a highly visible public place or on any state capitol land.

It's the location that I don't have a problem with. Had this been on a state capitol lawn or a federal building it would be different. I hope the supreme court sees that distinction also.

"Seventy-five years later, the U.S. Supreme Court will determine whether that gesture of respect violates the U.S. Constitution's separation of church and state. This is because the memorial resides on federal property in the middle of California's Mojave National Preserve."

[leekohler]

I agree with that. Like I said. The mitigating factor is the location in a desert and NOT in a highly visible public place or on any state capitol land.

It's the location that I don't have a problem with. Had this been on a state capitol lawn or a federal building it would be different. I hope the supreme court sees that distinction also.

"Seventy-five years later, the U.S. Supreme Court will determine whether that gesture of respect violates the U.S. Constitution's separation of church and state. This is because the memorial resides on federal property in the middle of California's Mojave National Preserve."

That's why I don't see any point to removing it.

[Peace]

That's why I don't see any point to removing it.

You can add to that all those little bittie crosses one sees while driving down county,state and federal highways that are small memorials for people that died in a car crash. Shall we tear all of those down too ?

[Rodimus Prime]

I'd actually be fine with that, just so long as it wasn't used as a precedent for other, higher-profile, religious symbols. IOW, if religious groups wouldn't point to this and say "well, they left that cross in the remote desert alone, so they should also leave these 10 commandments on the courthouse walls alone too".

But it comes back to intent. The 10 commandments intent was religious based. This one is not therefor I see no problem with it.

[mactastic]

But it comes back to intent. The 10 commandments intent was religious based. This one is not therefor I see no problem with it.
So as long as their intent wasn't religious, you would be OK with a Satanist plopping some goat horns or an inverted star on a memorial on public property?

[Ugg]

I'm surprised that nobody's brought up the fact that it was erected in 1934.

Personally I think there should be some sort of a cutoff date, before which things are mostly left alone. It would bother me a great deal if it was a result of the McCarthy era.

Unlike many who think that its isolation is irrelevant, I think that if anything it's even more relevant.

[leekohler]

I'm surprised that nobody's brought up the fact that it was erected in 1934.

Personally I think there should be some sort of a cutoff date, before which things are mostly left alone. It would bother me a great deal if it was a result of the McCarthy era.


Agreed. But I thought the age of the thing would be a given as a reason to leave it alone.

[Rodimus Prime]

So as long as their intent wasn't religious, you would be OK with a Satanist plopping some goat horns or an inverted star on a memorial on public property?

It is proving that it was not put up for a religious reason. There is a case in Texas that shows it is acceptable as long as its point was not for religious reasons.

But your argument is religious in nature there for does not go against the one I made and fails under Separation of church and state

[Queso]

Can't we just pretend it's a non-religious memorial that completely co-incidentally looks a bit like a religious shape? Seriously, aren't there far greater issues at stake in the world than some 80-odd year old piece of stone?

[leekohler]

Can't we just pretend it's a non-religious memorial that completely co-incidentally looks a bit like a religious shape? Seriously, aren't there far greater issues at stake in the world than some 80-odd year old piece of stone?

One would hope.

[mactastic]

It is proving that it was not put up for a religious reason. There is a case in Texas that shows it is acceptable as long as its point was not for religious reasons.
Yes, I understand that.

But your argument is religious in nature there for does not go against the one I made and fails under Separation of church and state
I'm asking if you would be OK if the situation was reversed? If the monument in question was to Pagan veterans or Muslim veterans and reflected their religious symbol, and was of the same age, same location etc., and could be shown to not have had religious intent, that the symbolism was purely coincidental to the message of memorialism. Would you feel the same way?

Like I said, I don't really care about this particular memorial. It doesn't offend or threaten me in any way. My only concern relates to the ability of those who push this type of agenda to use it as support for further encroachment of religious symbolism into the public sphere. Personally I think the best solution is to allow it to remain, but put an asterisk around the decision such that it is an exemption to the rule, not the rule itself.

[Gelfin]

You can add to that all those little bittie crosses one sees while driving down county,state and federal highways that are small memorials for people that died in a car crash. Shall we tear all of those down too ?

Funny, I made exactly this connection. I don't think government failure to sweep the right-of-way clean of these little remembrances implies government endorsement of whatever symbolism was meaningful to the people who erected it.

Although there are many cases where government representatives directly, or religious groups attempting to borrow the authority of government, try to press their religious beliefs upon the public, in this case I'm not getting any sense of an attempt to advance a religion, or any intended slight to the contributions of non-Christians in World War II.

Besides, I recognize that people had more provincial attitudes in the past. By the same token that I would not require us to go around the country sanitizing every historic monument that uses the term "men" where we would likely today use "people," I do not think it necessary to bowdlerize religious content in a similar context.

Thus I'm narrowly on the "leave it alone" side, though the invective in that opinion piece tried very hard to sway me in the other direction.

[Rodimus Prime]

Yes, I understand that.


I'm asking if you would be OK if the situation was reversed? If the monument in question was to Pagan veterans or Muslim veterans and reflected their religious symbol, and was of the same age, same location etc., and could be shown to not have had religious intent, that the symbolism was purely coincidental to the message of memorialism. Would you feel the same way?

Like I said, I don't really care about this particular memorial. It doesn't offend or threaten me in any way. My only concern relates to the ability of those who push this type of agenda to use it as support for further encroachment of religious symbolism into the public sphere. Personally I think the best solution is to allow it to remain, but put an asterisk around the decision such that it is an exemption to the rule, not the rule itself.

short answer no i would not have a problem with it

[Tomorrow]

I'm asking if you would be OK if the situation was reversed? If the monument in question was to Pagan veterans or Muslim veterans and reflected their religious symbol, and was of the same age, same location etc., and could be shown to not have had religious intent, that the symbolism was purely coincidental to the message of memorialism. Would you feel the same way?

I, for one, would be okay with such a monument under those terms, but I'd like to add a caveat - that the intent of the monument is to honor veterans of a particular faith (or lack thereof), and not to advance the teachings of that faith. I think the memorial in question falls into this category as well.

My own personal opinion* of the "establishment clause" of the first amendment is that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a state religion. My own opinion is that the constitution does not prohibit the presence, practice, or mention of religious beliefs, symbols, or ideals; but that it does prohibit the state from establishing any particular religion as a state religion. Applying that opinion to this case, I would be fine with the government allowing these symbols to be used in memorials, as long as the government is not endorsing one over the others as a "state religion." Clearly, the intent here is not to push a religious agenda.

*(I'm fully aware that my opinion does not agree with Supreme Court rulings on the matter.)

[Rt&Dzine]

This link gives some details:

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Salazar_v._Buono

And not that it's important but the cross isn't made of stone but is made of metal pipes that have been replaced several times.