ACLU... I hate you.

[Shiari]

I love how rare it is for "zealots" to ever be applied to one's own religious belief.

 

[desertanimal]

Duh, your the Devil.. OF course God Bless would annoy you.

The contraction of "you are" is spelled y-o-u-apostrophe-r-e. Y-o-u-r is possessive.

 

[glenhead]

Before I get into responses, I'll say that I don't attend any religion. I was raised in the Methodist and Episcopalian churches, but quit it all about thirty years ago. I have my own beliefs, and am led by nobody.

Shall we ask the Senate Finance Committee?

We've elected them to foist their viewpoints on us. Yes, they're supposed to represent our viewpoints, but once they get into office the glory of the position overrides any sense of right or wrong, and they do what the extremists dictate.

I'm pretty sure that the constitution exists to protect from tyranny of the majority as much as it exists to protect from the tyranny of the elite. So, yeah, the needs of a small group can generally override what 70% of the country wants (Where did you pull that 70% number from, anyway?).

The cross was erected on private land, but the land was turned into federal land as part of the establishment of the protected Mojave desert. So now it's federal land.

If you can show me one case of religious, yet non-Christian, symbols being preserved on publicly owned land, then I'll agree with the sentiment of your post.

Ok, so it existed before the federal land came into being at all. Grandfather it. The 70% number came from an analysis of the US Census (I think). It was published in the last few weeks, or at least that's when I saw it. For the first time, over 20% of people in the U.S. declare no religious affiliation. 70% declare an affiliation with some form of Christianity. The other 10% are associated with some other religion. 25 years ago, over 80% were Christian of some stripe.

Frankly, I don't give a hoot what religion it is - if it's a monument erected to honor, with no intention to incite, it should be allowed.

To steal a sentiment from Shiari - how rare it is for "tyrrany" to ever be applied to one's own viewpoint. If you believe that religious tyrants run the country, then we'll just have to disagree.

If said monument is explicitly religious, and is put up on government land, then I can tell you exactly what gives them the right say, "You have to remove it."

The Constitution.

Again, if the monument was on formerly private land "obtained" by the government, and it was left in place as a memorial for 60+ years, then why don't the people who put it there have just as much right to request that it remain?

How does it imply that is isn't "supporting" one religion over another?

Which begs the question: Which group of "zealots" gets to decide? The group of zealots you identify with or the group of zealots you don't identify with?

I suppose I don't view it as "supporting" as much as I view it as "leaving it alone". I don't agree with zealots on either side of ANY issue. I'm very much a middle-of-the-road kind of guy, but one of my base beliefs is that people should RESPECT each other, and that's what's gone completely down the crapper in the last forty years. If a group put up a memorial 60+ years ago, and it is not causing actual HARM, then others should show the decency and respect for their fellow man and leave it alone.

<snip>I'm going to stay atop my fence post on this issue. I have issues with both sides.

So do I. I'm trying to get people to THINK, not just spout.

I love how rare it is for "zealots" to ever be applied to one's own religious belief.

Yup! That's why I apply it across the board. I despise zealotry no matter where it comes from. Nobody should force their beliefs on anyone else. Period. Again, it all comes down to respect. The monument is causing NO HARM, so the zealots (this time coming from the left wing (and for pete's sake don't get me started on religious zealots, Rich can't afford the server space)) should respect the spirit and love for fellow man in which it was erected and leave it the he!! alone.

 

[COerriccaRN]

Well I think they should leave it. The government can shove it up their... you know what's ...

 

[tricksterpup]

The contraction of "you are" is spelled y-o-u-apostrophe-r-e. Y-o-u-r is possessive.

and he is possessive!!!!

 

[Emily1188]

Again, if the monument was on formerly private land "obtained" by the government, and it was left in place as a memorial for 60+ years, then why don't the people who put it there have just as much right to request that it remain?

Because at the moment the land became government property, the cross became unconstitutional, and whoever put it up has absolutely no rights to keep it there on public land. It really is that simple, in principle. In principle, this is a black and white issue. It doesn't matter when it was erected - while the courts may have changed regulations and enforcement of said regulations over the years, the overarching rule of the Constitution makes it clear that erecting (or maintaining!) religious symbols on government land is unconstitutional.

In practice, of course, it is less simple. Because I am not particularly zealous, I don't really care if the cross stays or goes, and of course, I think it would be a huge waist of time to try and remove every bit of religious symbolism from public soil.

But in theory, this is such a simple issue. No religious symbolism on federal soil.

 

[tyflier]

Just to throw some gasoline on the fire...

There are rules and regulations concerning the placement of religious icons on federal lands. Did those same regulations exist 60 or 70 years ago, when the monument was first erected? If the cross was put up before the rules were enacted, why does it not get "grandfathered" in, instead of laws being enforced ex post facto at the whim of a small group of zealots?

Zealots? Who is the zealot? People fighting to preserve the land for use by ALL people, or the very small group of individuals fighting to keep a religous symbol on publicly owned land? You should probably carefully think about the definition of the word "zealot" before you answer that.

And "grandfathered" would require that the original monument in original condition be in place and in tact. Since it is regularly taken down and changed to keep it in repair...there is no grandfather clause. The cross currently in place is not the same cross that was always in place. Grandfather laws don't apply to figurines that are cnotinually changed.

How does permitting the memorial to stay imply that the federal government is "supporting" one religion over another?

How does it not? The government sanctions and supports Christianity moreso than any other religion in this country. Allowing an overtly religious symbol to remain on public land is absolutely governmental support of a single religion. That's unconstitutional.

Why is it that one VERY small group can override the preferences of over 70% of the US population (as of 2007)? Why do the wishes of one bunch of zealots count for more than the rest? Precisely HOW does the sight of a cross or other-thing-tied-to-religion cause actual "injury" to anyone in their right mind? Are they incapable of turning the other way? Do they really, truly have that little regard for their fellow man that they'll force their agenda on everyone else?

Where do you get 70% of the US population? I doubt that 70% of the US population are even aware of the existence of this debate. Why do the wishes of 3 or 4 VFW members count for more than the Constitution, the National Park Service, and the entire population of the US, who actually own the land the cross is on?

Why is it more important for one group of zealots to get to decide what is "meaningful"? If a group puts up a monument honoring someone, displaying something that is deeply meaningful to them, something that is not intended to inflame or incite, what gives another group the right to say "no, that's not meaningful, you have to remove it"? I'm willing to allow that if a monument is intended to inflame or incite, and is erected solely for the purpose of offense, then that's a different bag of worms. Is there a single living soul who truly believes that a cross honoring war dead was intended to be offensive?

Because there is this thing called a Constitution, which is designed to preserve the rights of ALL citizens. The land is not private. The memorial is. What gives any group of individuals the right to establish a private memorial on public land?

What the he!! ever happened to common sense and common decency?

You tell me.

This case is the first time a case has made it to the Supreme Court with this kind of direct analysis of how extensive the Establishment Clause impinges on the Free Exercise Clause. Many other cases have been debated, up to the US Court of Appeals (where the 9th District has done their usual fabulous job of ignoring the Constitution and legislating from the bench, but that's a whole 'nuther thread), but none have passed the litmus test necessary to make it to the Supreme Court. It'll be fascinating to see how it all ends up.

Yes, precedents are always fascinating.

The ACLU is arguing what they believe to be a historical case for the people of the US. A very small group of private citizens are arguing that their personal symbol is more important than any other person or animal in the Mojave Preserve, past, present, or future.

Now...where did I put my definition of the word "zealot"?

 

[Nova_C]

Ok, so it existed before the federal land came into being at all. Grandfather it. The 70% number came from an analysis of the US Census (I think). It was published in the last few weeks, or at least that's when I saw it. For the first time, over 20% of people in the U.S. declare no religious affiliation. 70% declare an affiliation with some form of Christianity. The other 10% are associated with some other religion. 25 years ago, over 80% were Christian of some stripe.

Frankly, I don't give a hoot what religion it is - if it's a monument erected to honor, with no intention to incite, it should be allowed.

To steal a sentiment from Shiari - how rare it is for "tyrrany" to ever be applied to one's own viewpoint. If you believe that religious tyrants run the country, then we'll just have to disagree.



Again, if the monument was on formerly private land "obtained" by the government, and it was left in place as a memorial for 60+ years, then why don't the people who put it there have just as much right to request that it remain?

So you claim all Christians currently support the existence of that cross. That's very presumptuous of you, is it not? Not all Christians think the same, believe the same, or live the same. Many Christians absolutely support the separation of church and state to the degree where they'd likely support the removal of this symbol.

The land became federal in 1994 (or thereabouts). The ACLU had reached an agreement with the NPS to remove it in '02, I believe, but then congress tried to block it's removal.

Again, until you can show me non-Christian symbols from other religious existing on public land, this is unconstitutional and should be either removed, or at least replaced with a memorial that isn't for Christians only.

 

[Pruddock]

So you claim all Christians currently support the existence of that cross. That's very presumptuous of you, is it not? Not all Christians think the same, believe the same, or live the same. Many Christians absolutely support the separation of church and state to the degree where they'd likely support the removal of this symbol.

The land became federal in 1994 (or thereabouts). The ACLU had reached an agreement with the NPS to remove it in '02, I believe, but then congress tried to block it's removal.

Again, until you can show me non-Christian symbols from other religious existing on public land, this is unconstitutional and should be either removed, or at least replaced with a memorial that isn't for Christians only.

I already have go back and read the thread. There are Jewish symbols all over the federal buildings as well as pagan symbols.

Chris, lol yeah it's Payton. When I corrected you on the other thread I was Just using the bold A to point it out. With a name like that you get used to all different types of spellings lol.

I actually agree with those riding the fence. I see both sides of the issue. I still think it would be more productive to create another monument or memorial that is neutral and forget about this one that really doesn't effect anybody...

 

[glenhead]

Nope - never said that all Christians currently support the existence of that cross. I said that here we have a group that represents a small minority percentage of the U.S. population forcing their beliefs on everyone else.

A couple of people have challenged my statement that 70% of people in the U.S. are Christian. Instead of arguing with me about the 70% number, why not do a little research and prove otherwise? The study came out in the last few weeks, and updated a study published in 2004. I can't find the update, but here's the paper on the '04 study:
http://www.cephas-library.com/church_n_state/church_n_state_protestants_soon_to_be_minority.html

In the '04 study, the numbers were a bit over 75%.

You want non-Christian symbols, and that'll make it all ok? Check out Mesa Verde National Park or Casa Grande. Those are two I can name off the top of my head, being a Southwest native. Wanna bet there are others? What about totem poles?

Since all religious symbols are banned from all federal properties, perhaps we need to raze the Alamo, St. Paul's Anglican Church, the kivas at Mesa Verde and Casa Grande, and replace them all with Starbuck's. Would that suffice? All Americans worship Starbuck's, don't they?

Definition of zealot? According to Merriam-Webster, " a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan". Yeah, that fits.

There are laws preventing putting up new religious doo-dads on federal lands. If the doo-dad was there for 55 years before it became federal land, leave it alone.

My point is if someone doesn't like something that's been there since way before they were born, they don't have to frickin' look. They should respect the feelings of others - show some respect for someone outside their own narcissistic world.

"Ooh, it disses people who aren't Christians." Bat puckey. It honors ALL war dead, in a way that was meaningful to the people who put it up in the first place. Find me ONE instance where someone said "this memorial is only to honor Christian war dead, not Jews or Muslims or non-religious people or (heaven forbid) Buddhists ('cuz Buddha is fat and fat is evil)" or anything even remotely approaching that. The whole concept that a war memorial somehow causes "harm" is ridiculous, no matter what its shape.

 

[glenhead]

One more thing I keep forgetting to say. I don't like seeing crosses all over the place. I mean reeeeeealy don't like it. There are many that I'd prefer not be there, because in my opinion they're eyesores and have no place cluttering up the view and espousing a religious viewpoint I don't ascribe to. However, I respect others and their beliefs. If it gives them comfort, then I can look past it. It is causing no harm, and the fact that it annoys me is overridden by the comfort that another can derive. THAT is how I think the whole accursed mess should be dealt with.

 

[alan]

I'm not a Christian, not religious at all, don't believe in gods.
I like this sentence, perfect.

It honors ALL war dead, in a way that was meaningful to the people who put it up in the first place.

It's not a horrible thing, it's a nice thing. I may not agree with their religion, but I agree with the sentiment of the monument. We visit Arlington Cemetery often and many of the stones have crosses, I don't mind at all that a monument to someone's life includes religion.
If they can get it to happen I say leave it but if the law says it must go then, sadly, I guess it must go.
I really doubt we'll see our landscapes obscured with random religious monuments because one group set a precedent.

 

[tyflier]

Nope - never said that all Christians currently support the existence of that cross. I said that here we have a group that represents a small minority percentage of the U.S. population forcing their beliefs on everyone else.

Being a Christian does not presume that you wil support the erection of a Christian symbol on public lands. The ACLU doesn't represent a "small minority percent"...it represents 100% of the population. The "small minority percent" are the ones fighting to keep the ONLY religious symbol tat is currently being allowed to remain on NPS property. Perspective is a wonderful thing...especially when dealing with numbers.

A couple of people have challenged my statement that 70% of people in the U.S. are Christian. Instead of arguing with me about the 70% number, why not do a little research and prove otherwise? The study came out in the last few weeks, and updated a study published in 2004. I can't find the update, but here's the paper on the '04 study:
http://www.cephas-library.com/church_n_state/church_n_state_protestants_soon_to_be_minority.html

In the '04 study, the numbers were a bit over 75%.

The number of people claiming to be "christian" to some extent has nothing to do with the number of people in support of this "memorial" being kept where it is. Nicely constructed strawman, though. I'll give you credit for that...

Using the results of a poll that is in no way representative of the actual issue at hand does nothing to prove your point. It only gets in the way. By your own admission...the poll, it's reason for being, the questions asked, and the answers recieved are in no way representative of ANY opinions on this particular issue.

You want non-Christian symbols, and that'll make it all ok? Check out Mesa Verde National Park or Casa Grande. Those are two I can name off the top of my head, being a Southwest native. Wanna bet there are others? What about totem poles?

Since all religious symbols are banned from all federal properties, perhaps we need to raze the Alamo, St. Paul's Anglican Church, the kivas at Mesa Verde and Casa Grande, and replace them all with Starbuck's. Would that suffice? All Americans worship Starbuck's, don't they?

Native American symbolism at Native American historical sites is in the same realm as a wooden cross erected in the middle of the desert? Religious symbols at a religious memorial should be equally judged? If you really, truly believe that, than you are missing the entire point of the thread.

And just for the record...the Mojave Nature Preserve has long been recognized as Native American land, with Native American importance, both spiritually and socially. They STILL have nationwide Pow Wows at this location.

Definition of zealot? According to Merriam-Webster, " a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan". Yeah, that fits.

Very good. Now...the handful of individuals fighting this tooth and nail to remain in place...in your estimation, this is not zealotry, yet the ACLU fighting to prevent a precedent of religous symbolism being allowed in National Parks across the board is zealotry? Well...at least you can read the definition. You can't apply it appropriately, and you can't use it appropriately...but at least you can read it.

Don't get me wrong...I agree 100% that it fits. Just not in the manner you are trying to MAKE it fit.

There are laws preventing putting up new religious doo-dads on federal lands. If the doo-dad was there for 55 years before it became federal land, leave it alone.

Why? Why should it be allowed to remain in place, after the government tok posession of the land? There are monuments, memorials, buildings, plots, fences, and other "do-dads"(I like that word) that are removed almost every single time a new National Park is named. Why should this one have been different?

My point is if someone doesn't like something that's been there since way before they were born, they don't have to frickin' look. They should respect the feelings of others - show some respect for someone outside their own narcissistic world.

It's about time non-Christians stopped being "butt-kissers". It's about time that Christians stopped try8ing to rule everything and run everything. It's definitely about time that the courts stopped ruling in favor of the "Moral Majority" out of habit, and started ruling based on the actual constitutionality of the situation.

To be quite honest...I'm sick and tired of "not looking". I close my ears to the Pledge of Allegiance, Star Spangled Banner, and Stars and Stripes already. I close my eyes and don't look at my money as it is. I can't read any of our founding documentation without seeing referance upon referance of God. All because the religious zealots in this country(see...it fits there...) seem to feel that if it's THEIR symbol I should ignore it. But if it's MY symbol...it's not allowed. To be frank...I'm damn tired of looking the other way...

"Ooh, it disses people who aren't Christians." Bat puckey. It honors ALL war dead, in a way that was meaningful to the people who put it up in the first place. Find me ONE instance where someone said "this memorial is only to honor Christian war dead, not Jews or Muslims or non-religious people or (heaven forbid) Buddhists ('cuz Buddha is fat and fat is evil)" or anything even remotely approaching that. The whole concept that a war memorial somehow causes "harm" is ridiculous, no matter what its shape.

No...it doesn't. t does NOTHING to honor any veteran of any faith other than Christianity. It is NOT a universal symbol, it is NOT a patriotic symbol, and it is NOT a recognized memorial. Claiming that a purely religous symbol represents ALL war dead is...well...bat puckey. I like that word too.

Ever heard the phrase "Actions speak louder than words"? You can claim all you want that this represents everyone, but the bottom line is quite simple, really...it is a specifically religious symbol. By definition, it is not representative of every religion, nor is it representative of every "war dead" person's beliefs.

A plaque, obelisk, statue, flag, or military ic9on is representative of all war dead. An empty cross isn't even representative of all Christians...

The whole concept that a war memorial somehow causes "harm" is ridiculous, no matter what its shape.

I agree. So why waste time, money, and effort fighting to keep a religious symbol in place when a more neutral symbol would be less offensive, and more globally representative of the individuals that actually fought and died?

Unless, of course, only Protestants count as "war dead"...oke:

 

[Nova_C]

One thing I was thinking about:

How do you guys decide when it's okay to ignore the US constitution? Almost every debate I've ever participated in where Americans are involved, the US constitution is inevitably brought up to support someone's arguments. This is a clear violation of the constitution: If violating it now is okay, how do I figure out when it can be violated in the future?

 

[Emily1188]

One thing I was thinking about:

How do you guys decide when it's okay to ignore the US constitution? Almost every debate I've ever participated in where Americans are involved, the US constitution is inevitably brought up to support someone's arguments. This is a clear violation of the constitution: If violating it now is okay, how do I figure out when it can be violated in the future?

Well hey, as long as they mean well by it...

(That's the part I'm just not buying... )

 

[Shiari]

Personally, if someone tries to put a cross over my grave as a non-christian, I'll come back and haunt them out of pique.... even if souls don't exist, my annoyance will generate one. Claiming it is for all is bull poopy. It's a symbol that is meaningful and reassuring to christians. The pentragram or a triquetra would have more spiritual meaning and reassurance to me. Having been bible-thumped enough as a teen, crosses tend to give me aller-jesus which is unfair, I know, but proof that it is not a "universal" symbol by any means.

If they're really really throwing a fit... how about simply moving the cross to private land? That way it still exists, but is no longer unconstitutional.

Oh but wait, that would make *sense* and be an easy way out.

 

[ZoologyGirl]

crosses tend to give me aller-jesus

:roflmao: I think milk just came out my nose.

 

[alan]

Okay, how about if I say "It honors the dead in a Christian manner, and they didn't care what religion the dead were, they honored them anyway". Sucks that they wanted to be nice to someone in their own way, right?
Personally I don't care if someone prays for me, go ahead please, I'll take positive thoughts no matter what you believe.

 

[jazzgeek]

...crosses tend to give me aller-jesus...

:roflmao: I think milk just came out my nose.

Likewise, and it's not because Heather and I live in America's Dairyland.

That was a Magnum P.I. (Pun Intended) !!!!

:cheers:


Dale

 

[COerriccaRN]

Crosses not only represent "Christian" religion... Here is a quote

"The Cross is used to mark a place of Honor & Sacrifice for thousands of American Soldiers Worldwide .To consider the Cross "only "as a Christian Religious Symbol is rediculous.It has been used by the Hopi-Maya-Eygyptain & even Pre Columbian Cultures.On gravestones and in genealogy the sign means dead, deceased and date of death.As the Cross is used to Honor the Sacrifice of Jesus it is also used to Honor the Sacrifice of Our Soldiers...Certainly all of the Soldiers were not Christains...To dishonor this sacrifice is shameful.. ACLU ..You actually had it coverd up with something ugly..Who in their "right mind" would do such a thing"

I agree 110% with the above quote

Also...

I don't mean to be crude, but WTF? - whoever has a problem with this memorial and wants it gone should move out of this fine country and be quick about it...we don't need them here.

tell them to go home--then they donthave to see a symbol that represents the beginning of how they are even able to be here!! ACLU--kick rocks!

One of my favorites...

obviously the aclu is missing the point of the monument. It was not placed to honor any religion but to honor our veterans.the fact that it was placed by christians is not the issue. if the muslems or jewish faiths would like to place one next to it i don't think there would be a problem as long as it was placed with the same intention of honoring our vets. After all some of our most decorated vets weren't christian.

This lady who said this is like... my spokeswoman!

I cannot understand why a memorial erected in 1934 is NOW under fire for being "religious" and on federal land... hasn't it been that way for 75 years? Why bother to complain now if it hadn't bothered anyone before. People have gone too far with their "I'm offended...." crap. Individual rights is one thing, but it doesn't mean you are entitled for everyone to dance to the tune you want.
I've had family in the military since I can remember and married a Navy man. It makes my blood boil when idiots are heard louder than the rest of us normal everyday folks who sacrifice so they can whine.

A country that turns its back on its military is a country awaiting a revolution

Another one that I will vouch for

I can't believe that these peaople have nothing better to do than to drive around and find things that affend them. Go live somewhere else then. This is our country and it was founded on chritian beliefs, if you don't like it then move somewhere else.

Another GREAT quote from a GREAT America

Why do our beliefs which started this country have to be stifled in order for other foreign ones to feel comfortable in our country?

This lady KNOWS her stuff...

here is so much I do not understand about all of these agencies that are doing the things they say and do. I have had so many people in my family in the military,and I want to know where these other BOZO's are coming from? Let them go to Iraq or Afghanistan,or Iran,and see what FREEDOM is! This is sickening! It's a disgrace to the human race! Most of our songs like, America,America, God shed his grace on thee! Where are peoples minds,they are gone,and our youth is watching this,how if the Lord tarries,what kind of world are they going to inherit??

I have SO many more... the petition is almost 200,000 strong. The cross WILL NOT be torn down.