Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mscriv, May 27, 2009.
Sad story in my opinion.
Full Story Here.
That's just ridiculous. Leave it alone.
Yeah- it's not a big deal. It's not as if it's in a courthouse or anything.
I lean towards the momorial being taken down, but that's only after reading that one commentary and knowing nothing else about the story.
That is very sad indeed. Some people have too much time on their hands.
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.
Are they proposing replacing the cross with something else as a 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.
Take it down and replace it with a non-religious memorial.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I would say the same thing about those who spent their time authoring California's Prop 8.
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.
Fine- take it down. But I think this is pettiness at it's worst.
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.
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.
I got this from Wikipedia:
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.
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.