RE: Saving a soldiers memorial.

RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (Full Version)

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

Message

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 11:09:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The original cross was put up in 1934, more than 15 years after the armistice, so no one was returning. That cross fell down many years ago. A white metal pipe cross was put up around the time the land was acquired by the federal government in 1994. Ken, Please don't try to speak about facts. It spoils the rehtoric and rightous indignation.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 11:13:52 AM)
Domken, if you could show anyone else put it up you would. That they, the WW1 Vets, decided to do it 15 years later is not a refutation of anything. IT is of no relevance at all. I guess some of the slower posters might let that slip by. The cross has indeed been maintained over the years. It has been vandalzied and repaired and damaged in storms and repaired. The Original plaque was stolen. That makes it more of a memorial, not less. You haven't corrected me about anything. You never adressed the fact that in holdings and previously existing uses are often "Grandfathered" into Federal Parks when they are created. And I gave you the example of commercial rights and privledged access in Kantishna (Denali Park, Alaska). Which you did not respond to. There are also Churches that stand in Federal Parkland, because the Churches were there first, and have historical and cultural value. Can nothing with a cross on it be in a musuem that gets a penny of Fed money?

DomKen -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 11:22:28 AM)
If you don't understand the nuances of the Lemon test then I'm not going to waste my tim educating you. As to who put up the white metal pipe cross that is known and it isn't a WW1 vet and it wasn't someone legally entitled to do anything on the land in question befor eor after the land became federal property.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 11:44:56 AM)
Right the metal cross was an upgrade, and part of the on going maintence of the place. That doesn't change anything. A cross has been there for 75 years since put up by WW1 vets.... It's not the right making the left look bad on this. It is the left refusing to accept a reasonable solution.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 11:56:22 AM)
???? The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs: 1The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; (to allow a prexisting cultural artifact to remain, after the land was incorporated into a park)2The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; Leaving the Monumnet does neither3The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. This doesn't What does the lemon test, which was about the state paying salaries to Catholic School teachers, have to do with this? The crux of this case is customary and preexisting use. It would not matter if it was a Hopi monument. Or a bhuddist monumnet. Or a pasta monument. Or a mining claim. Or a fish camp. Liberals are opposed to protecting more acreage and allowing the monument to remain. It's disgusting.

DomKen -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 1:08:27 PM)
Wrong. This cross fails two prongs of Lemon. The unidentified white cross on top of a hill visible from the sole highway between LA and Vegas has no secular purpose since it is not identifiable as a war memorial. The NPS refusing to allow other relgious symbols to also be placed on the same hill top advances those religions that revere the latin cross over all other faiths. Fail two prongs of Lemon and the government action is unconstitutional. The cross must come down.

airborne92 -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 2:12:32 PM)
You are talking yourself in a circle. Just because the plaque identifying the cross as a war memorial was stolen does not change the fact that it is one. What happens when a stone war memorial on government land, worn down over time by weather, is no longer recognizable as a war memorial? Should it be removed as well? What the veterans chose as a symbol for the memorial is irrelevant. The fact remains that they chose a cross, and those that followed made sure that the memorial remained as it was intended by replacing the original cross with one that was more durable. They were not trying to place one belief system over any other, instead they were honoring the wishes of the veterans that originally erected the memorial. If you cannot understand this concept, or are unwilling to accept this concept, then it is you that needs take a hard look at your own values. I have not stated my believes on religion or the military since both are irrelevant to this discussion and I don't force my personal views on others. Keep in mind that not everyone agrees with your views, and any assumption that your views are the norm in this country is extremely arrogant on your part.

Esinn -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 2:23:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Schools, Hospitals, Charities, the list could continue for pages of all the religious funding the government provides. I agree, it all should stop. Every dime should be returned. Why doesnt the ACLU go after these? I do not understand? They have been on the list for quite some time.

Esinn -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 2:26:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie I think the Secret service should not be allowed to provide protection when People go into Churches or Holy Ground. Let's really seperate it. Heck any law with a biblical basis should be repealed right? Part of the premise of Radical seperation is that it doesn't matter if the democratic process reaches the same conclusion as a religion, if its religious based it is invalid and illegal. So Murder is legal. Yay!! Natives say a mountain is sacred so you can't pee on it. Fuck em!!! Radical Seperation!! There are really no rational laws with a 'biblical basis'. The bible gave us no laws which did not predate it that are enforced in modern times. The bible really serves modern man no good. It makes people angry.. As this post indicates they feel their religion, not other religions should honor dead soldiers.

DomKen -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 4:17:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92 You are talking yourself in a circle. Just because the plaque identifying the cross as a war memorial was stolen does not change the fact that it is one. What happens when a stone war memorial on government land, worn down over time by weather, is no longer recognizable as a war memorial? Should it be removed as well? What the veterans chose as a symbol for the memorial is irrelevant. The fact remains that they chose a cross, and those that followed made sure that the memorial remained as it was intended by replacing the original cross with one that was more durable. They were not trying to place one belief system over any other, instead they were honoring the wishes of the veterans that originally erected the memorial. If you cannot understand this concept, or are unwilling to accept this concept, then it is you that needs take a hard look at your own values. I have not stated my believes on religion or the military since both are irrelevant to this discussion and I don't force my personal views on others. Keep in mind that not everyone agrees with your views, and any assumption that your views are the norm in this country is extremely arrogant on your part. There never was a plaque. No part of this has ever been about this plaque that someone in this thread simply made up. The cross is on a hilltop well above the road. There is nothing there but the cross.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 4:31:21 PM)
I was the person who noted that the cross had had a plaque previously. And I did not just make it up. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26255-2004Jun8.html Perhaps the Washington Post made it up, but I doubt it. "At issue now is an 8-foot-tall cross in the Mojave National Preserve in Southern California. It was first erected by the Veterans of Foreign Wars in 1934 and has been maintained as a war memorial by the National Park Service." http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/24/nation/na-supreme-court-cross24 Its about a war memorial. the idea that this was ever anything but a War memorial is simply made up nonense.

Grofast -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 4:31:37 PM)
plaque oe no plaque dose not negate the m eaning of the memorial why cant people get past the religious meaning and accept the fact it was chosen as a symbole for the honored dead. frankly it shows a huge level of intolorance that frankly disgusts me

rightwinghippie -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 4:43:18 PM)
And apperantly next month the USSC, will take up the case, and we will get to see which legal argument prevails. And as I keep saying. It is not the right making "Liberal" into a dirty word.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 4:45:27 PM)
quote: Just because the plaque identifying the cross as a war memorial was stolen does not change the fact that it is one. What happens when a stone war memorial on government land, worn down over time by weather, is no longer recognizable as a war memorial? Should it be removed as well? quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92 I disagree with your logic, Airborne. If a stone monument is worn away, it does not become a blatant advertisement for Christianity. Without context, the cross is nothing more or less than a symbol of a religion. Therefore, it is appropriate to question whether that, or any other religious symbol, is proper for a country that is not, despite what many may hope, a christian country.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 4:48:33 PM)
But as the Government maintained it as a war memorial for several years after the takeover, the assertion that it,"is nothing more or less than a symbol of a religion", is clearly untrue. It was an offcially recognized memorial put up and maintained by the VFW.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 4:50:24 PM)
quote: And apperantly next month the USSC, will take up the case, and we will get to see which legal argument prevails. ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie And apperantly next month the USSC, will take up the case, and we will get to see which legal argument prevails. And as I keep saying. It is not the right making "Liberal" into a dirty word. That is one of the beauties of our country, RWH. That matter of this kind can be settled in a peaceful, reasonable manner. You know what else is beautiful about this country? When this matter is settled, no one in the courtroom is going to be calling each other "pigs" or saying how even asking that this question be settled makes them "look bad"......What there will be a reasonable, rational questions and answers, after which a body of appointed judges who have listened to and questioned both sides will take the arguments they've heard, weigh them against the law of the land and render a judgment that will be binding on both sides of the issue. Amazing concept isn't it?

airborne92 -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 4:55:00 PM)
Your response makes absolutely no sense. You are saying that because the plaque is no longer there, that the memorial to honor the veterans is nothing more than a religious symbol? If so, you have shown yourself to be extremely intolerant of any view other than your own. What a group decided to use as an object for the memorial is irrelevant. It still remains as a war memorial, failure to accept that is wrong. As for this country being a Christian country. That is an entirely seperate discussion. This country was founded by Christians, with the express desire that all religions would be equally accepted. Are there people in this country that are not Christians? Are there people in this country that do not believe in any form of a Supreme Being?

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 5:22:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92 Your response makes absolutely no sense. You are saying that because the plaque is no longer there, that the memorial to honor the veterans is nothing more than a religious symbol? If so, you have shown yourself to be extremely intolerant of any view other than your own. What a group decided to use as an object for the memorial is irrelevant. It still remains as a war memorial, failure to accept that is wrong. As for this country being a Christian country. That is an entirely seperate discussion. This country was founded by Christians, with the express desire that all religions would be equally accepted. Are there people in this country that are not Christians? Are there people in this country that do not believe in any form of a Supreme Being? I do not think it nonsensical at all, Airborne. If the only reasonable explanation for an object is that it is religious in nature, it is a religious object. I don't care if it's there to honor fallen dead or mark a treasure map. If a person seeing it sees only the religious object, then that's what it is. And I personally don't find the cross all that warm and cuddly an object. I see it as a symbol of a religious system that for two thousand years had the goal of wiping my fore bearers out of existence. I do not even wish to deny the right of people to worship at this torture device, or to wear it around their neck, though I do wonder if had Jesus been electrocuted if they'd wear little electric chairs)....but I sure as hell do not see one and say all is okee dokee if it is adopted as a governement symbol. Oh...and this country was not founded by Christians who wanted to have all people live in equality. This country was founded by puritans who liked to hang witches, punish those who didn't keep the sabbath and generally enforce their own religion on any and all around. Our Constitution was formed by Christians who may or may not have craved religious equality. They also thought that women were not worth enfranchising and that black people made good farm machinery. That there is religious equality is as much a tribute to those who demand it, even for non-believers as those who framed the constitution.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 5:26:33 PM)
Spinner, and they won't be making false claims in that courtroom, like you do in post 36 of this thread. You really should back up or retract/ apologize for your false and direct accusation. 2nd time I have asked.... Your character and truthfullness is on full display. But I ain't holding my breath.

airborne92 -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 5:45:05 PM)
Only those that want it removed see it as a religious symbol, and not what it is. You have shown that by your own words. Because it is a cross it has to be a religious symbol. By the same token your logic dictates that a swastika has to be a symbol of hatred, despite the fact that in some parts of the world it is a religious symbol. The cross has been used as both a religious symbol and a symbol of hatred just as the swastika has. You have your misguided views and I am not going to change that because you have the same attitude as any religious zealot I have ever had the displeasure of dealing with. Now time for your history lesson. The Puritans, of which I am a descendant, did not found this country. They founded a British colony on this continent. As for what they did, they same thing happened back in the 1950s, both were reprehensible in my opinion. As for the treatment of women and blacks when the Constitution was written, they received the same treatment in just about every other country in the world at the time and in some cases even worse treatment. I am not condoning how they were treated, nor am I advocating for things to return to that standard. It is in the past, which is where I intend to leave it. The only purpose I have for learning about such things is to make sure that I at least don't commit the same mistakes that they did. You might want to consider doing the same

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.589844E-02