Saving a soldiers memorial. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

FangsNfeet -> Saving a soldiers memorial. (8/29/2009 2:28:02 PM)

Shouldn't all memorials dedicated to those who paid the ultimate price of freedom continue to stand regardless of personal or religious symbols which are apart of that memorial.

If this memorial falls, what will happen to all our memorials including those at Arlington National? What should and shouldn't happen to these memorials that honor American Soldiers?

http://www.donttearmedown.com/



rightwinghippie -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (8/29/2009 2:39:07 PM)

Not much detail on that website, but at a glance it seems ridiculous that the Gov would destroy an 75 year old monument like this. Covering it with a box? I hope the ACLU loses this case.



Grofast -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (8/29/2009 3:15:24 PM)

Typical ACLU bull shies they will protect flag burning but fight tocover up a memorial to those that really protect the right of free expression



tazzygirl -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (8/29/2009 3:39:09 PM)

For more details

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/mojave.asp



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (8/29/2009 4:53:50 PM)

~FR~

Wonder what they plan on doing with churches that are a national historic site, since they display religious symbols? The seperation of Church and state is not intended for things like this.



rightwinghippie -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (8/29/2009 4:54:13 PM)

Thanks for that link. Since the cross was there when the feds took the land, I think it should stay, and the 5 for 1 acre land transfer solves the problem nicely.

Down with the ACLU. Though I suppose Obama will side against the war veterans on this...



DomKen -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (8/29/2009 5:26:01 PM)

This is why the ACLU exists and a good thing. This is a cross on federal property. When the plaintiff in teh case asked to be allowed to put up a Buddhist symbol alongside teh cross the National Park Service refused. That is a clear cut establishment clause violation.

The cross is not the one erected in 1934 that cross was allowed to detoriate and the white metal pipe one was built at some later date apparently after the land was acquired by the US government and without any approval by the US government.



tazzygirl -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (8/29/2009 5:30:39 PM)

Even the ACLU has to work within the confines of the law. And the man they are initiating the lawsuit for doesnt live in California. the cross was there before the property became federally owned. the land was transferred to the Vets... and they still complain.

the property is now owned by an organization, not by the government. they have no say.



DomKen -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (8/29/2009 5:59:42 PM)

The land transfer was illegal and was blocked by the federal courts. The land still belongs to the federal government. A US citizen doesn't need to live in any specific state to have standing to sue the federal government.



MasterMgm -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (8/29/2009 6:45:56 PM)

So the cross has been on this land for 75 years and NOW it could be offensive to someone "who MIGHT one day drive down this road" That is a load of bs.

As far as the church and state issue, IMHO, I believe when the founding fathers wrote the
Constitution they were saying that the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty is  about preventing the government from setting up some particular church to which all must belong.



estah -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (8/30/2009 6:00:09 AM)

I am for taking down the cross (no I am not an American) but it should be replaced with a new memorial that has no religious symbolism, it was not only Christians that died protecting America. The original cross fell into disrepair and was REPLACED, it is no longer wooden but a white cross out of metal piping. Instead of just tearing it down and leaving it at that. People should stop complaining and start making constructive suggestion. A religion neutral memorial for the soldiers would be fitting.



thishereboi -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (8/30/2009 7:24:54 AM)

fr
Typical bullshit. Don't they have anything important to worry about?



LillyoftheVally -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (8/30/2009 7:28:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
When the plaintiff in teh case asked to be allowed to put up a Buddhist symbol alongside teh cross the National Park Service refused. That is a clear cut establishment clause violation.


I can't really understand why? Does this mean had the symbol been allowed then there would be no issue?



DomKen -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (8/30/2009 8:44:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
When the plaintiff in teh case asked to be allowed to put up a Buddhist symbol alongside teh cross the National Park Service refused. That is a clear cut establishment clause violation.


I can't really understand why? Does this mean had the symbol been allowed then there would be no issue?

That's exaxctly what it would have meant. If the feds had allowed a buddhist symbol to be placed at the same site, and any other religious symbols anyone requested, then their would have been no establishment clause violation. This is exactly like the holdiday displays you will see in any number of government buildings around christmas which always include non christian symbols or messages.



LillyoftheVally -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (8/30/2009 8:46:06 AM)

Well they should have just put it up, I agree, if they aren't allowing other religious symbols they shouldn't allow any, including the cross



BitaTruble -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (8/30/2009 9:12:18 AM)

quote:

Shouldn't all memorials dedicated to those who paid the ultimate price of freedom continue to stand regardless of personal or religious symbols which are apart of that memorial.


Not when those memorials violate the very Constitution men and women died to protect. I don't think we should be dishonoring our dead that way nor insulting their memory in such a manner. Why does it have to be a cross? How does that honor the dead who were Jewish, Buddist, Agnostic or something else besides Christians? Why does religion have to enter into it at all?

What's wrong with a nice plaque?




tazzygirl -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (8/30/2009 11:53:07 AM)

It was created in 1934. Crosses were typically used back then.

If so many are so worried about a cross on a piece of land that was there for over 70 years... and 10 years before the government bought it... then why stop there. Lets eliminante any federal funding for any church organization. Lets reakky seperate church from state... on all levels.

or maybe we need to quit playing around with the mixed signals. History is just that, history.

http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/08/24/faith-based-funding-hostile-to-non-christians.htm



mnottertail -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (8/30/2009 11:56:51 AM)

Well, you go out to snelling or arlington or any of the regular old tombstone shaped tombstone national cemetaries, you are gonna see a lotta rocks carved with crosses AND stars of david.

Just saying, I got no dog in this fight, piss on a cross or piss on a tree, don't symbolize nothing to me.

Ron



BitaTruble -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (8/30/2009 12:04:06 PM)

quote:

Lets eliminante any federal funding for any church organization. Lets reakky seperate church from state... on all levels.


Works for me!



rightwinghippie -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (8/30/2009 12:08:47 PM)

This relates to something most of experience to a degree in real life. You are trying to do something, and someone else wants to come and ruin it, for no reason but to ruin it. If this Guy seriously wanted to put up a bhuddist shrine to the fallen veterans of ww1, he could put it anywhere. Follow his dream. The ww1 vets went out and found private land to do it on, why shouldn't he have to. mybe the Gov will take the land the Bhudist guy chooses at some later date. But apperantly his dream is to ruin the memorial placed on private land 75 years ago, by men who fought and lost comrades in WW1. This guy is like the freak who drags his daughter to court over the Pledge. What an angry little freak. Wasting our money and our time.

And I do not think Bhuddah would approve of his intentions.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875