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 6:07:15 PM)
quote: 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. ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie I have officially changed my mind. As far as I'm concerned, the cross can be placed wherever anyone chooses it, as long as RWH gets off it.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 6:10:40 PM)
quote: 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. ORIGINAL: airborne92 I am not at all a zealot, religious anti-religious or otherwise. Personally, I can live with letting the cross stay as well as I can having it removed. What I do object to is the idea that there is something wrong with using the very process meant to settle this sort of dispute in order to do so. In short, I do not know the answer as I am not a judge or a constitutional scholar. I do however, view it as a question that should be asked.

FangsNfeet -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 6:13:30 PM)
Just out of curiosity, how many soldiers of the Army National Guard would obey a direct order to protect the Bull Dozer and keep protestors on the side lines by all necessary means? How many of us would shoot a US citizen, possibly a vet, for trying to stop a bull dozer from plowing over a War Memorial? Such a day could end with a lot of court marshals if not article fifteens.

airborne92 -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 6:15:48 PM)
Then you are in disagreement with the ACLU and those that want it removed?

airborne92 -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 6:23:02 PM)
That is a discussion that would be best served by those that have worn the uniform in the past and those wearing it now. It is a catch 22 situation. Having to protect a bulldozer from protesters while removing an object from government land is a lawful order. At the same it is also an unlawful order if you have to fire on protesters exercising their 1st Amendment rights, which you have sworn to uphold. It is a no win situation for anyone put into such a position. There are some that would refuse the order, and others that would follow it blindly. Having served I would follow the order to protect the bulldozer up until I was given the order to fire on the protesters, at which point I would have to stand in their defense as I swore to do, regardless of the consequences.

FangsNfeet -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 6:48:01 PM)
I have a feeling that this guy might step in front of that bulldozer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nONjlZ8YMkA

airborne92 -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 6:52:30 PM)
I have seen that video before. I have to agree that he would probably step in front of the bulldozer, and I can also understand exactly why he would. Veterans have a much different mind set than most Americans, as there are things that they will not only fight for but die for if need be.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 6:56:33 PM)
quote: Then you are in disagreement with the ACLU and those that want it removed? ORIGINAL: airborne92 Then you are in disagreement with the ACLU and those that want it removed? I am going to say something that I don't think very common on this board. I don't know the answer to this one. On the one hand, I have respect for every man and woman who has died in the service and defense of this country. I may have had differences with those who give them their orders, but to put one's life on the line for one's country is always a noble thing. On the other hand, I respect what these men and women died for. Part of that is a strict separation of church and state. I do not want to see this a country under evangelical Christian rule. I do not want to see this country ruled by any religion or denomination. The idea of a religious symbol displayed on public land disturbs me. The fact that it is displayed there when other religions and beliefs are not allowed to do so disturbs me more. My point has never been that this is a question I can easily answer. It is that it is a question that should be asked. Those who support the leaving of the cross are not mindless zealots and those who support removing it are not pigs. This is why we have courts and judges and a legal system to employ them. What I will say is that I do not know if I support the ACLU in this position on this matter. But I do support their bringing the matter up for judgment.

airborne92 -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 7:17:06 PM)
Alright, I respect your honesty in this matter, and I will admit that you are not as much of a zealot as I might have thought. I still think you are a bit zealous in the way you present your views of religion, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. That being said, let's look at the facts. As I understand the matter, and I am not an expert on this particular situation, the land in question was privately owned at the time the war memorial was erected. At some point, either before or after the Government took control of the land, the memorial was replaced by a more durable one in the fashion of the original. Since the memorial was present at the time the Government took control of the land it has to remain by law as it is a historical landmark. The memorial was originally erected by private citizens, so the choice of the memorial's design was up to them. The Government cannot decide to let other religious symbols be erected on the site since the separation of church and state says that the Government cannot dictate religion onto the people. By allowing other religious symbols, which may not reflect the religious view of those being honored by the memorial, they are changing the memorial's intent. We know that the memorial was for WW1 vets, at the least, but we do not know if it was intended for all WW1 vets or just those of a particular area or unit. By allowing other religious symbols onto the site or removing the cross it would be the same as if we were to allow the Statue of Liberty to be redone with the woman representing Liberty to be topless and wearing a thing bikini bottom.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 7:34:53 PM)
quote: By allowing other religious symbols, which may not reflect the religious view of those being honored by the memorial, they are changing the memorial's intent.ORIGINAL: airborne92 Now that is an interesting point. You speak of allowing other religious symbols which might not reflect the views of those honored. If this is true, the memorial only honors those Christians who died during WWI and possibly WWII. I am not familiar enough with my family history to know of world war one, but I know for a fact that three of my uncles went overseas in WWII and only one came back. I also am pretty sure that neither of the ones that didn't would feel overly honored or memorialized by a cross. While I am sure that it was not the intent of the erectors of the monument to be offensive or dismissive of those non Christians who ended up just as dead as the Christians, leaving only the cross as the symbol of honor can be seen as being so to those who did not share their faith, even though they shared their fate. Again, my point is not to say that I have the answer...I only restate that the question is far less open and shut than many seem to think.

airborne92 -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 8:27:23 PM)
Actually, my point is that we don't know who exactly is being honored by the memorial other than they were WW1 vets. Beyond that all of us are just guessing. It could be that the memorial was for WW1 vets from a specific town and that they were all christian. There may have been some who were jewish, or muslim, or even wiccan. I don't know and don't presume to know. My point is that by allowing other religious symbols onto the site or the removal of the cross, we are altering their memorial to fallen comrades. In other words, by allowing other symbols or the removal of the present we are dictating what is acceptable as a memorial because a small group of people find it offensive. No matter what you do for a memorial, someone will find it offensive for some reason. Whether it is the design, that it may have some religious connotation, that it only recognizes one group of people, or whatever. There is a memorial on a military installation, I don't remember which one right off the top of my head, that is dedicated to the black cavalry men only. I am sure there are some that find that memorial offensive.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 8:32:26 PM)
And is it better to bring such things up for examination or to leave them unspoken of or acted on by mob rule? Once again, I do not argue this subject with an answer in mind. But I do hope you see that the question is not entirely clear cut, and, as an organization who's mission is to bring these matters to attention and have them ruled upon, the ACLU is upholding American interests, not trampling them.

airborne92 -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 8:46:56 PM)
Tha ACLU does uphold American intersts, but only when it matches their agenda. I have seen the ACLU too many times actually fight on the wrong side of a discussion like this, where they supported the trampling of individual rights. I will give them credit that they do sometimes stand up for individual rights, but it is not always the case with them. What they should be doing is getting all of the facts that are available. The actual intent of the memorial by the men and women who erected it may never be known as they are all probably deceased at this point. There may be records of who the memorial was inteded to represent in the local VFW, but that is not guaranteed. Once they have all of the facts, they need to go to court and ask the judge if the memorial needs to be altered based on the current laws and the intent of the veterans who erected it. If the judge decides that the memorial has to be altered, then they should go to the group that erected and work out a plan that meets the law and the original intent. If it has to be removed based on those factors, then a new location in the same area should be found for the memorial. The problem I have is that if it is decided that is has to be removed, the ACLU will probably fight to keep it from being erected again on any government owned property to include state, county and local because it has religious connotations in their view. That is wrong in my opinion since it was erected by not only vets, but citizens as well. It should be decided by a vote of the people of the town, county or state if it can be placed on government property.

DomKen -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 8:52:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92It should be decided by a vote of the people of the town, county or state if it can be placed on government property. That would directly violate the 1st amendment. A local majority of members of a faith cannot vote to allow violations of the US Constitution.

airborne92 -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 8:55:43 PM)
It would not violate the 1st Amendment in any fashion. Since the government is not saying that it has to be a cross, or a star of David, or a pink elephant, there is no violation. The only violation is saying that the people couldn't do it.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 9:42:29 PM)
quote: Tha ACLU does uphold American intersts, but only when it matches their agenda. I have seen the ACLU too many times actually fight on the wrong side of a discussion like this, where they supported the trampling of individual rights. I will give them credit that they do sometimes stand up for individual rights, but it is not always the case with them. quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92 I think you underestimate the ACLU. Let me give you a case in point. Recently, the Whitehouse organized a place to send "fishy" emails being circulated against the health care proposal they were working to pass. Now, even taking this at it's kindest, that they were trying to find out what lies were being spread in order to counter them with the truth (please, to all you republicans, conservatives, etc. I am not saying I believe this wholeheartedly, just that this is the kindest interpretation), it is still a lousy idea. The idea of the government collecting information of any kind based on people's speech of any kind gives me the creeps. Even if the current administration handles it well, fairly and non destructively (I am not saying they would, I am again, putting the best face on it) there is no guarantee that the next administration would. It was a lousy idea and a lousy precedent to set. The ACLU had no problem joining with the right wing to strongly say that this was a lousy idea. In fact, they were preparing to take legal action against it, alongside such bastions of the Christian right as the ACLJ. If you take a look at the website of the ACLJ, even the most casual reading will show you that their agenda is counter to the ACLU's idea of what the country should be in many important ways. Still, when it came to a threat to free speech, they did not hesitate to take up arms for with the same vehemence as if it had been the right advancing this bonehead idea. You may not agree with every side of an issue that the ACLU takes, but their agenda does seem to be a protection of the bill of rights. And I think that is a good thing.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 9:42:33 PM)
Less likely than college students having a peace protest? quote: ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet Just out of curiosity, how many soldiers of the Army National Guard would obey a direct order to protect the Bull Dozer and keep protestors on the side lines by all necessary means? How many of us would shoot a US citizen, possibly a vet, for trying to stop a bull dozer from plowing over a War Memorial? Such a day could end with a lot of court marshals if not article fifteens.

airborne92 -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 9:49:36 PM)
At this point I can see that we have different points of view on a lot of issues. I am not saying you are wrong, but that I don't necessarily agree with you. I will admit that you have been very reasonable in your discussion with me on this and leave it at that.

DomKen -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/1/2009 11:47:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92 It would not violate the 1st Amendment in any fashion. Since the government is not saying that it has to be a cross, or a star of David, or a pink elephant, there is no violation. The only violation is saying that the people couldn't do it. The government cannot take any action in support of one religion over any others. What you suggest would do that. It is the equivalent of saying the state of Utah could hold a referendum to turn the state government over to the Mormon church.

airborne92 -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/2/2009 12:49:36 AM)
No it wouldn't. There is nothing in what I posted that suggested anything of the sort. The Government is not allowed to dictate to the people what religion they have to believe in. Period. There is nothing that says if the people decide to put up a war memorial for fallen soldiers, that are all christian, that it cannot be a cross. While other religions may not be represented, there is no need for them to be. The same holds true if all of the soldiers were jewish, or of some other denomination. The point is smply this, at the time the memorial was erected the majority of religious people in this country were of a christian faith. It would only make sense that they would use a cross for such a memorial. To take it down now because not every faith is represented is wrong and against the 1st Amendment. If that is too complicated for you to understand, then look at it this way. If during the holiday season a church or religious group puts up a Christmas tree, even in a city park, it is allowed under the 1st Amendment. There is nothing saying that a Jewish group cannot put up a menora(sp) to celebrate Chunakhah around the same time, or that a pagan group can't put up a yule log. The Government saying it can't be done though is a violation of the 1st Amendment, because they are saying in essence that you cannot celebrate your religion. If you chose not to have any religious beliefs, that is your right under the 1st Amendment, but at the same time I am allowed to be of the Norse Pagan beliefs, if I so chose, under the 1st Amendment. You make not like it, you may not agree with it, but that is what the 1st Amndment says.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.1728516