Should they take down the War Memorial Cross?

[Dino]

Regardless, Revising historical monuments or thought because of current softheadedness leads nowhere good. The ACLU, a collection of whackjob kneejerk tools IMNSO has no business attempting to remodel anything due to current mental midgetry. It's important that we keep our history, our monuments intact as they are because it's these books, ideals and monuments that set our current place in history into context. There's a lot of ugly in our history, a lot of terrible things, but revising those things out of text books because they are ugly or unpopular is a huge mistake.

Simply because the Book is still there, the monument is Christian, etc. Doesn't mean we go around changing it. We should look at it as history, as what our forefathers did and learn from it. "In God We Trust" Who really gives a crap what it says on the money, if this is what you've got to worry about, I've got some weeds that need pulled. It's unlikely in the extreme that this really causes ANYONE any injury. If it read in "Spaghetti Monster we hope" would anyone care? Seriously.

Alleged "intellectuals" really should be able to see the danger in these sorta actions. If we're not learning from our history it's going to repeat itself, again and again. Pretending something didn't happen or attempting to edit something so some special group can feel superior to another is a huge mistake. We need to look at what was done, understand WHY it was done, accept that as it is, and move on. Moving forward either accepting that what was done is appropriate, or rejecting it as wrong and learning from it. It's not our place to impose current thought, current feel, or current "everyone is special" psychosis on historical books, monuments, or thought. The arrogance of such notions is truly amazing.

On the flip side, listening to Christians cry about persecution here in the US is like listening to wealthy white men cry about not being in charge of something. Intriguing, but mostly kinda silly. Last time I checked the country still claims to be about 80% christian. Seems pretty healthy to me.

Rev-

Not really sure where you are going. No one is suggesting get rid of a monument, rather the objection is to there being only one faith represented on federal property. So I am not sure how history applies. In fact you could say history is being "edited" because vets of other faiths are not represented. Additionally the ACLU is representing a private citizen who brought his case to court and he had a right to be heard. So it is really not right to blame them because placement of religious symbolism on federal property is a legitimate 1st amendment issue, in fact two lower courts have already sided with the plaintiff. Are we not also "editing" history when we choose to ignore the intent of the writers of the constitution who saw the danger in federal government endorsing a particular religion?

 

[afterhours]

if you are ok with ignoring the first ammendment......

don't be upset when they ignore the second ammendment....

 

[Revlis]

Rev-

Not really sure where you are going. No one is suggesting get rid of a monument, rather the objection is to there being only one faith represented on federal property. So I am not sure how history applies. In fact you could say history is being "edited" because vets of other faiths are not represented. Additionally the ACLU is representing a private citizen who brought his case to court and he had a right to be heard. So it is really not right to blame them because placement of religious symbolism on federal property is a legitimate 1st amendment issue, in fact two lower courts have already sided with the plaintiff. Are we not also "editing" history when we choose to ignore the intent of the writers of the constitution who saw the danger in federal government endorsing a particular religion?

I dunno, Hell don't get all specific on me, I'm speaking in VAST Generalities!


Heck did you think I actually READ the Article? PAH! That would require effort, I'm much more comfortable simply spouting off, apparently this time I missed...

 

[Dino]

if you are ok with ignoring the first ammendment......

don't be upset when they ignore the second ammendment....

There is some truth here and where I am dissappointed in the ACLU. If you are going to defend civil liberties then you must defend them all.

I dunno, Hell don't get all specific on me, I'm speaking in VAST Generalities!


Heck did you think I actually READ the Article? PAH! That would require effort, I'm much more comfortable simply spouting off, apparently this time I missed...

It is all good bro...

 

[skydivr]

separation of church and state.....

why does a memorial to fallen soldiers have to have religious symbols? they were not fighting for god, they were fighting for the United States.

If it was put there in the 1940's, it has historic significance as much as religious. Why the heck is the ACLU trying to remove somthing put up before any of the current members were born? PC run amok.

 

[VaBusa]

I've always viewed this type of controversy from a completely different angle. I would fight for others' religious freedom, even if that means there are religious symbols on graves, memorials, in court houses, etc.

The flip side to that freedom is that if someone pushes hard enough, they'll lay their pentagrams, their upside down crosses, etc on places they feel they are needed to exercise *their* religious freedom too. You can't have freedom for one group; you must have freedom for all. I know that would be a huge issue for this country should someone ever truly push for religious equity and freedom.

I find it petty that anyone is offended by something that's been a memorial for generations. The ACLU needs a few more hobbies...

 

[skydivr]

if you are ok with ignoring the first ammendment......

don't be upset when they ignore the second ammendment....

When have you EVER seen the ACLU support the 2nd Amendment....?

 

[Spectre]

I think there are much better things the ACLU could be doing but, what does a cross have to do with a memorial to veterans? There are many memorials that have no religious context.

The monument and a plaque was originally placed there by a group of WWI veterans in the 30's.

When the ACLU first brought up the issue it was because an Army Ranger had reported it to them. Initially the problem was that the cross was on Federal land. The caretaker offered 5 acres of his property in exchange for the 1 acre containing the memorial that his friend had asked him to care for.

ACLU lawyers then said they would not be pleased with a land swap. They want the cross destroyed.

It's this stuff that makes me rethink my membership...

 

[afterhours]

When have you EVER seen the ACLU support the 2nd Amendment....?

not the ACLU.....

i am talking about all of you, the people that say its is ok for religious symbols to be displyed on federal land.

this thread is filled with people trying to justify a direct violation of the first ammendment.....

yet these same people are the biggest advocates of the second ammendment.

it is a slippery slope when you say "its ok to ignore the separation of church and state".....because someone one else(probably the ACLU) then look at the second ammendment .

 

[Lurch]

not the ACLU.....

i am talking about all of you, the people that say its is ok for religious symbols to be displyed on federal land.

this thread is filled with people trying to justify a direct violation of the first ammendment.....

yet these same people are the biggest advocates of the second ammendment.

it is a slippery slope when you say "its ok to ignore the separation of church and state".....because someone one else(probably the ACLU) then look at the second ammendment .

I have a question. We can play court here if you want even.

I will give you the fact that there is a cross on federal land. So now we do not have to arguee that point.
I will give you the fact of seperation of church and state. Again we do not have to argue that fact either.
Now the question is, who placed the cross on these lands? Veterans returning from war.
When was it placed there? over 30 years ago.
Did the government place it??
were these lands owned by the government when it was placed there??
Does the governement condone, support or maintain this cross?
and last question, What religion does this 8 foot cross belong to(before an answer is given make sure that we have proof of that answer)?

One last question,
Why is it ok for EVERY fire department in this country to use the Maltese Cross for their emblem and to represent their fire department?
Are fire departments (most not all) a part of the government. Look at the history of this cross and you will see that it represents Christianity, so a fire department that is a part of the local government is now breaking the law. Why don't we take all of them to court with the help of the ACLU?
Just a few questions that need to be answered.

 

[Spectre]

not the ACLU.....

i am talking about all of you, the people that say its is ok for religious symbols to be displyed on federal land.

this thread is filled with people trying to justify a direct violation of the first ammendment...

not quite true actually.

The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Are you attempting to say that is a war memorial is establishing a religion? Just because it's a cross? As long as the government is not mandating anyone to pray at a certain time, at a certain place, to any deity, person, or relic this seems to do away with that argument.

Maybe this is prohibiting the free exercise thereof? Abridging the freedom of speech or press?

 

[head east busa]

are we removing all religious symbols from public view and who is stopping them from erecting something for others of different faiths. The real question is why is this a huge deal to them there are much more important things to focus on. Does this mean we knock down everything tha had anything to do with the past it's origin is obviously religious and at the time this was ok. As it is a rememberence of that era when it was ok why is it any ones right to remove it ? when we stop documenting the past in any way we are prone to repeat it. This was what our country was founded on and where everyone has a right to their opinion that is what it is an opinion. so if the ACLU feels different religions should be present then why not add to the monument to bring us togethor rather than remove it and tear us apart. Just food for thought

 

[Lurch]

I have a question. We can play court here if you want even.

I will give you the fact that there is a cross on federal land. So now we do not have to arguee that point.
I will give you the fact of seperation of church and state. Again we do not have to argue that fact either.
Now the question is, who placed the cross on these lands? Veterans returning from war.
When was it placed there? over 30 years ago.
Did the government place it??
were these lands owned by the government when it was placed there??
Does the governement condone, support or maintain this cross?
and last question, What religion does this 8 foot cross belong to(before an answer is given make sure that we have proof of that answer)?

One last question,
Why is it ok for EVERY fire department in this country to use the Maltese Cross for their emblem and to represent their fire department?
Are fire departments (most not all) a part of the government. Look at the history of this cross and you will see that it represents Christianity, so a fire department that is a part of the local government is now breaking the law. Why don't we take all of them to court with the help of the ACLU?
Just a few questions that need to be answered.

One more Question that needs an answer. This cross was placed here PRIOR to these lands being federal lands.

Looking at the facts, even though I am not a lawyer or judge, I would have to say it can stay.

 

[afterhours]

not quite true actually.

The First Amendment reads:



Are you attempting to say that is a war memorial is establishing a religion? Just because it's a cross? As long as the government is not mandating anyone to pray at a certain time, at a certain place, to any deity, person, or relic this seems to do away with that argument.

Maybe this is prohibiting the free exercise thereof? Abridging the freedom of speech or press?

are you really trying to argue separation of church and state?



because if you are you are a little late, that has been decided many times by the Supreme Court.

 

[Spectre]

are you really trying to argue separation of church and state?

because if you are you are a little late, that has been decided many times by the Supreme Court.

nope. nice attempt at a redirect though. my questions are how does a war memorial constitute a 'church' and why would the offer by the caretaker to acquire the memorial be unacceptable?

seriously, this whole thing makes as much sense as someone screaming about all the Buddha statues chinese restaurants...

 

[J'Man]

It's just another attempt to try and please a select minority at the expense of everyone else. I can't help but wonder when will it stop! This is America, which is full of different types of heritages and traditions. If you don't like it or it offends you there are plenty of other countries to live in. I wouldn't move to China and expect them to change anything to please me. This whole argument just makes me sick. I want to know what ACTUAL harm is done to someone if they see a cross or any other symbol for that matter! I have to see symbols and things that I don't agree with or find offensive all the time, but so what! I simply ignore it and go on about my business. This whole PC thing has gotten out of hand. Other countries are just laughing at how silly Americans have gotten. I guess eventually we'll all be living in padded round rooms so we don't hurt or offend anyone, including ourselves.

Sorry I had to get that out. Now back to your regular scheduled programming. :sulk:

 

[afterhours]

nope. nice attempt at a redirect though. my questions are how does a war memorial constitute a 'church' and why would the offer by the caretaker to acquire the memorial be unacceptable?

seriously, this whole thing makes as much sense as someone screaming about all the Buddha statues chinese restaurants...

sorry, but this has nothing to do with "a church". the first ammendment creates the separation of church and state....
this was so fundamental to the founding fathers they placed it above "the right to bear arms".


over the last 200+ years the Supreme Court has ruled over and over what that means. religeous symbols do not belong in state and federal property.

the reason why the offer was not accepted was explained in one of the articles.

and you analogy does not work because a business owner has a right to put a statue of buddha if he wishes, it is a private business.... not land paid for by tax dollars.

religious freedom means freedom for all, not just your religion......not just the most popular religion....and for some it means that they do not have to be harrassed for thier lack of religion.

 

[Spectre]

sorry, but this has nothing to do with "a church". the first ammendment creates the separation of church and state....
this was so fundamental to the founding fathers they placed it above "the right to bear arms".

true, but the actual context was a Governmental run church much like the Church of England in which the King Henry the 8th set himself up as 'Supreme Head' (or some such). in this respect the people see the ruler of the country as 'devine' (honestly, not far from what some see now) whose word is 'inspired'. under this type of rule any voice against the ruler could be considered heresy and punishible by whatever means the 'church' (government) deems necessary.

over the last 200+ years the Supreme Court has ruled over and over what that means. religeous symbols do not belong in state and federal property.

the reason why the offer was not accepted was explained in one of the articles.

I will go back and read. I don't like missing details.

and you analogy does not work because a business owner has a right to put a statue of buddha if he wishes, it is a private business.... not land paid for by tax dollars.

was the cross memorial placed there with federal dollars after the land became property of the federal government? if not then it seems to be a pre-existing condition and those have typically been 'grandfathered' in for sake of historical significance.

religious freedom means freedom for all, not just your religion......not just the most popular religion....and for some it means that they do not have to be harrassed for thier lack of religion.

I fully agree. Although on a slightly different tangent, don't you think it's dangerous if the biggest target gets taken down? As a whole, recent history shows Christians to be more tolerant in terms of other religions within their communities than any other groups of people (including Athiests).

 

[afterhours]

on april 19,1175....77 men stood in front of an army of of british regulars. at the time the greatest armies on the planet. most were related, you had fathers standing next to thier sons, brothers standing with brothers. they did not stand there for god, they stood and risked death for basic civil liberties......

they were tired of being less than.....tired of being 2nd class citizens, tired of paying taxes without representation in parliament.

on that day, they started a tradition that has not stopped to this day....young brave men serving and giving thier lives for the USA.

a year later, thomas jefferson wrote one of the most powerful things any man has ever written. the Declaration of Independance, it is with this document that we state to the world that we will no longer be "LESS THAN". in this document it is put to paper that

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

now we can argue over alot of things, but you have to admit that the words on this paper were important....the founding fathers argued over them because not only was the new country on shaky ground....but they signed thier death warrants when they chose to sign it...it had to be right!

now most people want to talk about the constitution, civil rights and they forget to look at the big picture. these 13 colonies stood up and told the king that all men are created equal...not just tha majority, not just the upper class or the nobility. these were people that had kings and queens and specifically wrote "all men are created equal".

what really bothers me about discussions like this is that people talk alot about thing they know little about... they say things like "this country was founded on christian values" when the founding father took great care to separate church and state.

one of my favorites "that damn ACLU is at it again, protecting the rights of the minority". that is thier job.....remember all men are created equal? even the minority.

those men at concord did not die for god, the men at bullrun did not die for god....this country conrinues to send men to die, to face the guns of our enemies and we do not do it for a holy crusade...

why do we do it? because all men are created equal

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

this country was built on the ideal that one man had just as many rights as 100, or 1000. its in the very documents that create this country, it shows in the way choose our leaders, the way we make our laws.....

i know its scary when a small group stands up and complains about the things you like, that make you feel comfortable but that is the beauty of america....the world is filled with places were the mob rules, where those with the power and the money make the rules and i do not want to live there.

the reason america is great is that only here, can one man stand up be heard.

200 years ago a minority stood up told the king to F off.
150 a few good men ended slavery
50 years ago the minority told the rest of the country that white and black are equal.....


anyway. sorry for the rant, i just found out good friend died and i am a little liquored up. hopefully this makes sense to someone other than me.

 

[Revlis]

I'm just tired of small groups of misguided individuals with chips on their shoulders hiding behind some peculiar interpretation to justify idiocy.

ANYONE comparing ANY modern group of "Activists" hell I'll even take it back to the poor pathetically misguided hippies to what our forefathers did, or what Lincoln set in motion, and Dr. King helped solidify is seriously misguided.

What we have today are small groups of In it for their own reasons folks, without any real point, rattling bars and pissing in the wind to try and make themselves feel important. Imagined "mighty leaders" with gaggles of misguided simps waddling along behind.


Or something like that... I'm liquored as well... No friends died recently though... Sorry for your loss. I'm mostly out of living good friends, so sorry to hear it.