RE: Saving a soldiers memorial.

RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (Full Version)

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

Message

DomKen -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/2/2009 7:50:41 AM)
You fundamentally misunderstand the establishment clause. The basic premise you seem to be operating under is that in this area a local majority can hold sway. That is absolutely the wrong way to view the rights granted by the US Constitution. Rights are not granted to protect or empower the majority, that happens through the ballot box, but to protect and empower the minority. You nativity scene on public land argument is the prime example. The courts have long ruled that a christmas tree is a secular symbol and may stand alone but that a nativity or menorah etc. is not and the only way they can be allowed on public property is if any other faith or non faith that want representation can have it as well. This is where the cross failed. When the plaintiff requested permission from the NPS to put up a Buddhist symbol and was turned down this became a violation on the establishment clause.

airborne92 -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/2/2009 8:56:20 AM)
When are you going to quit talking yourself in circles to try to prove a failed opinion? The separation of Church and State was already violated by the US Government when Utah was admitted to the Union. To be allowed to join as a State, Utah was required to make polygamy illegal, which ws a part of the Morman faith. To this date they have not made polygamy illegal for Muslims in this country. If the citizens decide by vote to have a Nativity scene put up on city property, then yes other faiths must be allowed to erect a comprable symbol as well. But, the government cannot deny them the right to do so. To say that a cross that was used as a war memorial in the past must come down is by the same token a violation of the 1st Amendment even if the Government now controls the land. The Government is also not allowed to change that memorial as it is of historical importance at this point. If you cannot wrap your mind around those concepts, then you have no understanding of the actual Bill of Rights and nothing I try to explain to you will ever change that fact.

philosophy -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/2/2009 9:18:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92 To be allowed to join as a State, Utah was required to make polygamy illegal, which ws a part of the Morman faith. To this date they have not made polygamy illegal for Muslims in this country. ....really? Are US laws on polygamy written in such a way that they single out Mormons? i'd have thought that any such laws would be written in such a way that they'd apply across the board, regardless of religion.

Esinn -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/2/2009 9:24:35 AM)
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. Glad you responded. Sometimes it is hard to pay attention to every thread of interest. Real life does has built in mechanisms which get in the way. It is a symbol of christianity, not a war memorial. There is simply not enough room on that little chunck of land to rightfully respect the religion of every vet. Oddly none of them ever complain like christians do. Oddly, you are correct it very well might be non-christian vets or non religious people who might die on such a day. This is the danger of religion. I just wonder what kind of pathetic soldier fights and dies only for a constitution which supports his religion, not the freedom from religion or religions which are not his own. If the monument was ordered ripped from the ground, the ACLU is awesome at what they do - god like almost. Those who get in the way of the law, even if they fought for deserve what they have coming. I am sure all other methods would be made before your brute force blood stained fantasy comes true. I understand it well the way to christiany is one of the most blood stained roads modern society knows of. It is sad such an over all mentality exists. I guess though it is "faith" that blinds.

DomKen -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/2/2009 11:14:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92 When are you going to quit talking yourself in circles to try to prove a failed opinion? The separation of Church and State was already violated by the US Government when Utah was admitted to the Union. To be allowed to join as a State, Utah was required to make polygamy illegal, which ws a part of the Morman faith. To this date they have not made polygamy illegal for Muslims in this country. polygamy is illegal in every state of the union. Muslims are not exempt from those laws. I have no idea where you got the idea they are. quote: If the citizens decide by vote to have a Nativity scene put up on city property, then yes other faiths must be allowed to erect a comprable symbol as well. But, the government cannot deny them the right to do so. To say that a cross that was used as a war memorial in the past must come down is by the same token a violation of the 1st Amendment even if the Government now controls the land. The Government is also not allowed to change that memorial as it is of historical importance at this point. If you cannot wrap your mind around those concepts, then you have no understanding of the actual Bill of Rights and nothing I try to explain to you will ever change that fact. The point you're evading is the government, the National Park Service in this case, did deny the plaintiff permission to erect a comparable symbol. That violates the establishment clause. Therefore the cross has to come down or the hilltop has to be made available for the placement of any and all religious symbols. Nothing in the constitution requires maintenance of anything because it is of historical signifigance. You keep claiming that people can somehow vote to violate the establishment clause which is completely incorrect.

tazzygirl -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/2/2009 1:45:14 PM)
No, but try and tear down a historical landmark. Im not saying it is.... but maybe it should be declared such.

Grofast -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/2/2009 1:49:30 PM)
to tear down or cover the Mojavi croo makes about as much since as covering up or tearing down all the stars of david crestents and crooes that adorn the national cemitaries nation wide including arligton. tis a stupid debate leave the cross alone

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/2/2009 1:54:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grofast to tear down or cover the Mojavi croo makes about as much since as covering up or tearing down all the stars of david crestents and crooes that adorn the national cemitaries nation wide including arligton. tis a stupid debate leave the cross alone The point is, in a national cemetary, you have the right to erect a cross, or a star of David or a wiccian symbol. Here, it seems only the cross is allowable. That brings the discussion to a new subject and renders the matter worthy of investigation.

luckydawg -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/2/2009 7:41:08 PM)
Tazzy, it was acknowledged as a War Memorial by the NPS after it was taken over by the Feds, untill one guy complained. That it was recognized as a memorial is not in question. There sure are quite a few people trying to confuse the issue on this. -It was put up on Private Land -In 1934 -By the Veterans of Foreign Wars -With a plaque stating what it was for, a War Memorial -It has been maintained ever since, being rebuilt several times -It was never considered illegal untill 75 years after it was put up. -A reasonable compromise, with precedent, where the Public got 4 more acres of protected Park Land was created, which the "Liberals" object to wasting our tax money to try to destroy a War Memorial. Get some private land, just like the VFW did, and put up your stupid pasta peace Monument. You have every right in the world to do just the same as the VFW did. But you don't want the same right as the VFW, you want to take away their right. The right of Men who fought in WW1 to put up a monumnet that they wanted to. Disgusting Pigs.

tazzygirl -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/2/2009 7:42:53 PM)
I didnt say as a war memorial. As a historical landmark, it qualifies for different considerations.

luckydawg -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/2/2009 7:46:41 PM)
Oh, I see what you mean. That would also certainly be a form of reasonable compromise, that would not be accepted any more than the previous one was.

tazzygirl -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/2/2009 7:51:52 PM)
As far as the "liberals" objecting to using public money.... i saw that more as a stall tactic than them not wanting to "waste" money.

luckydawg -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/2/2009 8:01:35 PM)
No, forbiding the spending of funds to take it down was a stall, and the Republicans did that. Thats not what I was refering to. Congress, arranged a land swap with a private holder on the border of the park. One acre around the cross went to the VFW to keep the Memorial (with full public access), and the Park got 5 more acres adjacent to the park. Win Win, for everyone. But an injuction was imposed by the 9th to prohibit the transfer. So it's up to the USSC now. It's pretty clear though that much of what has been presented so far, to take it down, is clearly false. The years of lawsuits and actions is what I am refering to as a waste of Tax money durring a Reccession. Wasting tax money to tear down a 75 year old War Memorial.

DomKen -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/2/2009 8:08:25 PM)
Hi Lucky, did you get unbanned?

luckydawg -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/2/2009 9:50:10 PM)
Yes.

adnjane -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/3/2009 4:16:16 AM)
wrong thread

tazzygirl -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/3/2009 8:01:51 AM)
roflmfao you made one... exactly one.. post... and you claim its the wrong thread?

LadyPact -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/4/2009 11:01:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales The point is, in a national cemetary, you have the right to erect a cross, or a star of David or a wiccian symbol. Here, it seems only the cross is allowable. That brings the discussion to a new subject and renders the matter worthy of investigation. With one important difference. You can put up the religious symbol of choice on the plot that relates to your loved one. You don't get to walk to the next plot over, see one type of symbol there, and decide that your symbol of choice needs to be on that plot, too. That's what's going on here. That memorial was erected by WWI veterans by WWI veterans. It was a memorial that someone felt inspired to place for their fallen comrades when they didn't come back while in service to their country. To Me, no, someone doesn't have the right to come along and add additional symbols to it that didn't know what it meant the the person who first erected it. I think that's just an attempt to either cheapen it or try to find a legal footing for their own preferences 75 years later.

thishereboi -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (9/4/2009 11:34:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales The point is, in a national cemetary, you have the right to erect a cross, or a star of David or a wiccian symbol. Here, it seems only the cross is allowable. That brings the discussion to a new subject and renders the matter worthy of investigation. With one important difference. You can put up the religious symbol of choice on the plot that relates to your loved one. You don't get to walk to the next plot over, see one type of symbol there, and decide that your symbol of choice needs to be on that plot, too. That's what's going on here. That memorial was erected by WWI veterans by WWI veterans. It was a memorial that someone felt inspired to place for their fallen comrades when they didn't come back while in service to their country. To Me, no, someone doesn't have the right to come along and add additional symbols to it that didn't know what it meant the the person who first erected it. I think that's just an attempt to either cheapen it or try to find a legal footing for their own preferences 75 years later. [sm=yourock.gif]

TheHeretic -> RE: Saving a soldiers memorial. (5/11/2010 5:48:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet 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/ I hope I'm ok with the policy on digging up a necro-thread, but I'm a bugged this afternoon. Two weeks after the Supreme Court ruled regarding it, it seems that some ASSHOLE SCUMBAGS who can't handle losing decided to rip it down anyway. Mojave Cross Stolen - Christian Science Monitor link

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.589844E-02