shadow walker  |
I guess I will open my mouth and tick some people off but stupid has raised itsugly head again in something. The cross in the Mojave means something special to many people who had someone in World War 1,My grandfather was one,and now we have a few that do not understand honor and want it down and want the 1 acre of land transfer stopped. Now I guess the next thing we will take down the crosses at Arlington because its funded by th U.S. Goverment and has a federal budget. Shadowwalker
|
ebear
i agree 100% with you.It seems people find the easiest things to screw up and leave the important stuff on the back burner.
samD
Assholes need to be run out of Dodge.
Press clipping,
"In February, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide whether a cross to honor fallen soldiers can stand in a national preserve in California. At issue is an eight-foot-tall cross in the Mohave National Preserve in San Bernardino County. A smaller wooden cross was first constructed by the VFW in 1934 and was originally maintained as a war memorial by the National Park Service. The American Civil Liberties Union objected to the cross and filed a suit on behalf of a former Park Service employee.
Two years ago, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the ACLU and said the cross was an “impermissible government endorsement of religion.” Bush administration lawyers appealed to the high court last fall and said the decision would require the government to tear down a cross that had stood without incident for 70 years as a monument to fallen service members.
The VFW said the 9th Circuit ruling could trigger legal challenges to the display of crosses at Arlington National Cemetery and elsewhere."
ecaman
The cross is the symbol of Christianity. The USA is, & always has been a Christian nation. We also have freedom from religion, for those who don't believe. That's fine; we should all have freedom of choice. I never have understood why a cross should so strongly offend atheists. I know, & have known many atheists, but only a very few of these are virulently anti-religious. I have tried to discuss the matter with them, with absolutely no success, since they're so fervent & virulent. Unfortunately, these few are the ones who are activists. They make as much "noise" as they can, & the national media likes noise, since they can get inflammatory sound bites, so these activists get media coverage. I don't like it, and it disturbs me, but the 1st Amendment guarantees their freedom to say & write whatever they wish. We'll just have to live with it. Let's all hope that the Supreme Court decides that the use of the cross is OK.
LLE
states that ..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".....
The problem with the the language in this case,IMHO, is the following:
(1) Does the existence of the Cross on Federal property constitute the making of law "respecting" the "establishment" of a "religion"?
and--(2) Would the enforced removal of the Cross, prohibit the "free exercise" of a religion?
This is my opinion, as opposed to anything a court might decide:
With respect to (1), above: permitting the Cross on Federal property is no more the equivalent of an establishment of religion, than placing the Israeli flag next to the US flag in the White House, when the Israeli Prime Minister is visiting. Both the Cross and the Israeli flag are or can be symbols of a particular religious orientation, but their display does not reflect that the US Government has adopted these religious orientations as those of the state religions of the USA.
With respect to (2), above: Reasonable people might believe that the placement and display of the Cross is an exercise in free speech, as opposed to an exercise or sponsorship of a religion. If the owner(s) of the property [the people of the United States] wish to permit such an object on their property as a statement, they should be permitted to do so.
Thus spake LLE................
ecaman
LLE, I agree with your arguments.
Bearmeat, I don't agree that the removal or destruction of the cross would be an exercise of your 1st Amendment right to free speech. You can certainly express yourself, as you did here, in any venue to which you have access. That's protected by the 1st Amendment. You could file suit to have it removed. The removal or destruction of the cross, which is private property, doesn't fall within the protection of the 1st Amendment, or of any other. I am by no means a lawyer, but the removal or destruction of the cross sounds to this layman like criminal mischief, which is covered by statute.
LLE
with respect to the alleged VFW statement, that a court decision ordering the Cross removal might trigger challenges to the display of crosses at Arlington National Cemetery.
First: I have been to Arlington National several times, the last being to attend a Military Funeral Honors ceremony for a close friend-- a two tour Viet Nam decorated Marine. I do not claim to be an expert of Arlington matters, but, after seeing the entire complex, I can say that I have never seen a solitarily displayed Cross at Arlington.
If, what the VFW is referring to are the religious symbols, engraved on the standard headstones provided by the VA, then the VFW obviously has very poor legal advice. Those symbols are available to all faiths [and non-faiths] and are chosen BY THE FAMILIES of the honoree, as an expression of the PERSONAL faith or belief of the honoree, NOT the sponsored belief requirement of the government of the USA. They are called
"emblems of belief", and at present there are over 35 different choices, including eleven different emblems [crosses] reflecting particular Christian beliefs, and the Star of David, the Buddhist Wheel, the Mormon Angel, and many many others. A law suit challenging these provisions would be summarily dismissed.