ACLU... I hate you.

[Emily1188]

LOL! Yes, following the constitution makes me un-America! My, you are funny!

Yep, those are all unconstitutional and should, in theory, be removed. I am opposed to them in principle.

 

[CaptBogart]

My Grandpa, a WW2 vet, actually got really emotional when he saw this announced on TV. He told my mom, "Look... they are trying to forget us already. We aren't even all dead yet." He cried... It was very upsetting and since it is solely a memorial for the veterans, they should leave it. Federal land or not. It is the American and most Patriotic thing to do for those who lost their lives to save our country.

I don't get this? Does he not know that there are WWII Memorials in almost every state? Google it...
One cross in the middle of the desert that "only three people can see" is no big deal if it's removed then. You know if it's to be removed, some organization will swoop in, purchase it, and put it on display somewhere else... Personally I'm neutral like Heather. I'm not religious, but I don't care one way or the other. I think it's funny that so many people get upset over this stuff when they didn't even know about it until it hit the news. I bet they wouldn't even go see it even if it was saved. There is controversy circling about Arlington right now too, because they took out the ending of the speech from Roosevelt because it said, "So help us God" in the sentence...

 

[desertanimal]

All religions are allowed to erect things they want.

Not on federal land, they aren't.

Christianity has always been allowed to erect things "they" want on federal land, but other religions historically have not. Therefore, it is not true (and still isn't) that "all religions are allowed to erect things they want. The preference is still given to Christian symbols which is why, certainly, the ACLU has decided to choose this particular undeniably religious symbol that is on federal land and make an issue of it. The issue is not the memorial, the issue is the undeniably Christian symbol on government land. The issue is that the religion represented by this particular symbol on public land has historically been used to suppress and oppress people of other religions and/or is still being used politically to oppress people who do not conform to that religion's dictates.

And, if it's it's so not a big deal that this cross is on public land and no one should worry about it enough to remove it, then why is your own underwear in such a proverbial bunch about its potential removal?

 

[tyflier]

Uhh...someone needs to re-read the article...

The cross was NOT erected as a Veteran's Memorial...it was erected as a cross. It was erected by private citizens on public land, with no approval from the Government or the National Park Service. It was erected in 1934 and was not recognized until 2002.

The reality is, the cross was erected illegally on National Park land, without permit or approval from the Government. It doesn't belong there. The fact that it is out of the way, invisible to most visitors, and privately maintained without help from the government or Park Service is the only reason it still exists. The individuals quoted in the article are in no way affiliated with the National Park Service...they are VFW members. The cross was never approved as a memorial nor was it ever approved for erection within the boundaries of the National Park. So the truth of the matter is that it does not belong there, should not have been there, and legally deserves no protection, Federally, Constitutionally, or otherwise. It was illegal to put it there, so how can it be unconstitutional to take it down?

I'm not saying it should be removed, and I'm not saying I agree with ACLU in this particular instance. But if you're going to argue the case, at least argue the facts, not the ideals as presented by a few private citizens.

 

[tyflier]

Of course it is Nothing is wrong with that. All religions are allowed to erect things that they want. People just need to learn how to accept that and keep mouths closed about it.

Really? By this logic, I and a few friends could go and erect an inverted cross at the base of El Capitan, call it a "war memorial", and expect Constitutional Protection for our illegal actions. Would you agree with someone doing that?

And the cemetary with all the cross is Arlington National Cemetery. The difference is really quite simple...Arlington was first commisioned as a veteran's memorial upon it's initial design and inception. It was, from first planning, an approved governmentally funded memorial. Same with the Vietnam Memorial, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and the statue of Iwo Jima. THOSE are veteran's memorials...

A Veteran's Memorial erected on Public Land must be approved before it is erected...not 58 years later...

 

[tsst]

Take the federal land part out of the argument. The article said it is no longer on federal land.

Congress in 2002 officially designated the Mojave cross and its surrounding property as a “national memorial” honoring American veterans of World War I. It also passed legislation ordering the National Park Services to transfer the one acre of land upon which the memorial sits to a private party – the Veterans of Foreign Wars in exchange for five acres of donated land.

I also agree with desertanimal that in a national cemetery the deceased should be able to choose what religion is representative on their grave marker or none at all if they so choose.

I am still a little skeptical how offended someone could really be from 1000+ miles away about a monument that has been standing for 75 years. Seems more like a sociopolitical ploy and we should all know how the ACLU loves to get involved. :shrugs:

 

[jazzgeek]

I believe veterans have the right to bear memorials showing thanks for what they have done for our country, but a memorial can be a plague...

I'd avoid that kind of memorial like the plaque. :sidestep:


(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)


Dale

 

[KJUN]

An important question might be, "What has the ACLU done in the past decade or so that was beneficial to the constitution and did make sense to honest people?"

 

[COerriccaRN]

I don't get this? Does he not know that there are WWII Memorials in almost every state? Google it...
One cross in the middle of the desert that "only three people can see" is no big deal if it's removed then. You know if it's to be removed, some organization will swoop in, purchase it, and put it on display somewhere else... Personally I'm neutral like Heather. I'm not religious, but I don't care one way or the other. I think it's funny that so many people get upset over this stuff when they didn't even know about it until it hit the news. I bet they wouldn't even go see it even if it was saved. There is controversy circling about Arlington right now too, because they took out the ending of the speech from Roosevelt because it said, "So help us God" in the sentence...

Mt grandpa fought in the war. He is very old and has memory problems. Please don't say things like "Doesn't he know..." or "He should know..." Because he doesn't. He see's the one memorial and gets upset.

And from this thread, I hope that God helps this country and the people in this country... It's like we are loosing partiotism...

This isn't about religion... its about ACLU having to stick their nose into every little aspect of religion. They didn't freak out when a million Muslims went and brought their prayer mats in the middle of Ney York and prayed for muslim prayer day, but they are having a cow over a cross in the middle of the desert.

 

[COerriccaRN]

What has the ACLU done in the past decade or so that was beneficial to the constitution and did make sense to honest people?"

NOTHING! Nothing at all...

 

[KJUN]

Mt grandpa fought in the war. He is very old and has memory problems.

Your grandfather has my gratitude. Some of us do understand what they did so we could have the best possible lives. I'm just ashamed at how many of uis are wasting their sacrifices only 60 years later.

My grandfathers both fought in the war, too. One is past away now, and the other won't talk about those days. He says, "that part of my life is over." I respect him too much to have ever asked again, but I AM still thankful for what they did for the future generations (i.e., us). They EARNED all of the respect and memorials we have given them...and they earned more than most Americans give them today.

In recent years, the ACLU hasn't earned anything from me that comes close to the word "respect."

KJ

 

[Pruddock]

LOL! Yes, following the constitution makes me un-America! My, you are funny!

Yep, those are all unconstitutional and should, in theory, be removed. I am opposed to them in principle.

Next time you're in D.C. stop and take a look at every federal building on The Hill... You'd be amazed by how much faith based architecture there is. I have to agree with the side that says people really need to get over themselves and just let people live. You don't have to get offended because you saw the Senate Building and an engraving of the ten commandments and Moses were on the wall, you just deal with the fact that they are there, respect the symbolism of what they stand for, and deal with it...

 

[Pruddock]

Christianity has always been allowed to erect things "they" want on federal land, but other religions historically have not. Therefore, it is not true (and still isn't) that "all religions are allowed to erect things they want. The preference is still given to Christian symbols which is why, certainly, the ACLU has decided to choose this particular undeniably religious symbol that is on federal land and make an issue of it. The issue is not the memorial, the issue is the undeniably Christian symbol on government land. The issue is that the religion represented by this particular symbol on public land has historically been used to suppress and oppress people of other religions and/or is still being used politically to oppress people who do not conform to that religion's dictates.

And, if it's it's so not a big deal that this cross is on public land and no one should worry about it enough to remove it, then why is your own underwear in such a proverbial bunch about its potential removal?

The ten commandments and Moses are on most Federal buildings somewhere in the intricate scuplting. Two very Jewish symbols... Christians always "get a priority" because the majority of the country is Christian so it is definitely going to seem that way. You are correct in that point. That would be the government laying down its hand to a majority which is going to happen whether its constitutional or not.

 

[Pruddock]

Take the federal land part out of the argument. The article said it is no longer on federal land.

I also agree with desertanimal that in a national cemetery the deceased should be able to choose what religion is representative on their grave marker or none at all if they so choose.

I am still a little skeptical how offended someone could really be from 1000+ miles away about a monument that has been standing for 75 years. Seems more like a sociopolitical ploy and we should all know how the ACLU loves to get involved. :shrugs:

Rep'd lol well said and I completely the families of the fallen should be able to help decide what goes over their loved one's grave. The plot and the place in Arlington is the memorial to the soldier, what they have on their grave is the symbol to the person. Sometimes I think that the ACLU forgets that and only sees the cross...

 

[Pruddock]

Great points by everybody!

 

[desertanimal]

I have to agree with the side that says people really need to get over themselves and just let people live. You don't have to get offended because you saw the Senate Building and an engraving of the ten commandments and Moses were on the wall, you just deal with the fact that they are there, respect the symbolism of what they stand for, and deal with it...

I agree with this in principle. If it were nothing more than a symbol on a building or a cross in the desert, who cares? But the problem is that it's a lot more than a symbol here and there on a building and a cross in the desert. Just as ONE example, the lack of separation of the Christian faith and the Federal government is what prevents gays from having a CIVIL marriage license recognized by the federal government. While churches should have control over what kinds of unions they choose to bless, churches should not be controlling what kinds of legal (governmentally recognized, that is--church ceremonies are not recognized by the gov't--only civil marriage licenses) contracts other people can and can't enter into. If people aren't willing to keep the separation between church and state clearly delineated when it comes to what kind of symbol gets carved into a piece of marble and set out in the desert, then the ideal of separation of church and state is ultimately doomed, is it not? And separation of church and state is one of the most important founding principles of this country--one of those things that soldiers fought for, and one of those things that's more important than anyone's personal feelings about a cross erected in the middle of the desert by and handful of people.

 

[Pruddock]

I agree with this in principle. If it were nothing more than a symbol on a building or a cross in the desert, who cares? But the problem is that it's a lot more than a symbol here and there on a building and a cross in the desert. Just as ONE example, the lack of separation of the Christian faith and the Federal government is what prevents gays from having a CIVIL marriage license recognized by the federal government. While churches should have control over what kinds of unions they choose to bless, churches should not be controlling what kinds of legal (governmentally recognized, that is--church ceremonies are not recognized by the gov't--only civil marriage licenses) contracts other people can and can't enter into. If people aren't willing to keep the separation between church and state clearly delineated when it comes to what kind of symbol gets carved into a piece of marble and set out in the desert, then the ideal of separation of church and state is ultimately doomed, is it not? And separation of church and state is one of the most important founding principles of this country--one of those things that soldiers fought for, and one of those things that's more important than anyone's personal feelings about a cross erected in the middle of the desert by and handful of people.

I completely agree with you. Great post

 

[desertanimal]

I have to agree with the side that says people really need to get over themselves and just let people live. You don't have to get offended because you saw the Senate Building and an engraving of the ten commandments and Moses were on the wall, you just deal with the fact that they are there, respect the symbolism of what they stand for, and deal with it...

I agree with this in principle. If it were nothing more than a symbol on a building or a cross in the desert, who cares? But the problem is that it's a lot more than a symbol here and there on a building and a cross in the desert. Just as ONE example, the lack of separation of the Christian faith and the Federal government is what prevents gays from having a CIVIL marriage license recognized by the federal government. While churches should have control over what kinds of unions they choose to bless, churches should not be controlling what kinds of legal (governmentally recognized, that is--church ceremonies are not recognized by the gov't--only civil marriage licenses) contracts other people can and can't enter into. If people aren't willing to keep the separation between church and state clearly delineated when it comes to what kind of symbol gets carved into a piece of marble and set out in the desert, then the ideal of separation of church and state is ultimately doomed, is it not? And separation of church and state is one of the most important founding principles of this country--one of those things that soldiers fought for, and one of those things that's more important than anyone's personal feelings about a cross erected in the middle of the desert by and handful of people.

 

[desertanimal]

Oops! My browser froze and I didn't know that this had already sent! Sorry for the double post!

 

[Hypancistrus]

That's what the fallen Wiccan soldiers would have said, who weren't allowed to have the pentacle placed on their own headstones in Arlington National Cemetery until just a couple of years ago, even though, of course, the Christian cross was allowed on headstones since the cemetery's inception.

I agree with this in principle. If it were nothing more than a symbol on a building or a cross in the desert, who cares? But the problem is that it's a lot more than a symbol here and there on a building and a cross in the desert. Just as ONE example, the lack of separation of the Christian faith and the Federal government is what prevents gays from having a CIVIL marriage license recognized by the federal government. While churches should have control over what kinds of unions they choose to bless, churches should not be controlling what kinds of legal (governmentally recognized, that is--church ceremonies are not recognized by the gov't--only civil marriage licenses) contracts other people can and can't enter into. If people aren't willing to keep the separation between church and state clearly delineated when it comes to what kind of symbol gets carved into a piece of marble and set out in the desert, then the ideal of separation of church and state is ultimately doomed, is it not? And separation of church and state is one of the most important founding principles of this country--one of those things that soldiers fought for, and one of those things that's more important than anyone's personal feelings about a cross erected in the middle of the desert by and handful of people.

Oops! My browser froze and I didn't know that this had already sent! Sorry for the double post!

I have nothing really to add to this other than.... YAY!! Stephanie is back! Woot!