Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mojave Memorial Cross

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SpiffPeters
    replied
    Re: Mojave Memorial Cross

    Franki - I am not trying rewrite history. There is a fair amount of debate about the framers religious convictions and how they felt government should interact with those beliefs. I am of the opinion that if you allow one, you must allow all without exception.

    Originally posted by DSurette View Post
    I don't think it means that the government should be intollerant of all religions. It just should not establish an official one.
    Precisely the point. Allowing a religious symbol on public property may seem innocent and in accordance with the majority view. By allowing such a symbol, it is a nothing less than a tacit endorsement of a given religion.

    Again, the land swap wasn't the problem. It was the fact that congress retained an interest in the land they traded to the VFW, which defeats the purpose of the land swap in the first place.

    I've no problem with allowing religious symbols and beliefs to be displayed on public property, so long as no religion is excluded. This means Jainism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Satanism..... should all be allowed to have their symbols and beliefs displayed on public property. If it is an established religious organization, then go ahead. Every parcel of public land should have an area dedicated to display of religious beliefs.
    Last edited by SpiffPeters; 05-12-2010, 11:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DSurette
    replied
    Re: Mojave Memorial Cross

    I think the separation of church and state thing is misused. I believe that the original intention was to prevent the government from establishing an official state religion. I don't think it means that the government should be intollerant of all religions. It just should not establish an official one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Frankiarmz
    replied
    Re: Mojave Memorial Cross

    Originally posted by SpiffPeters View Post
    We are a nation of christians, not a christian nation.
    Spiff, that's a real snappy line but history would prove the majority religion displays some symbol of their belief on memorials, graves and in text. Unless you want to rewrite history, the crosses will remain as proof of the period.

    Now as I said, if that crescent moon ever becomes the majority religion's symbol I'm sure you will find it displayed in a similar fashion. I think people confuse the interference of "church", or religion in government matters, with the desire of the masses to include religious symbols in certain "public" arenas.

    Leave a comment:


  • SpiffPeters
    replied
    Re: Mojave Memorial Cross

    We are a nation of christians, not a christian nation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Frankiarmz
    replied
    Re: Mojave Memorial Cross

    Originally posted by SpiffPeters View Post
    Were the symbol in question a crescent moon would the arguments be the same?
    Spiff, if a crescent moon represented what all those soldiers fought and died for way back when, then yes! I believe their ideals were "For God and Country", like it or not our country had strong christian values and influence at the time and unless you want to rewrite history the symbol of the cross must remain as accurate.

    I would imagine if sometime in the future the majority religion in our country were to become something represented by a crescent moon, then future generations would find that symbol along side the graves or memorials to their fallen heroes.

    I am not a chanmpion of christian beliefs or history, but I find it upsetting when people try to change the facts after the fact. For example, removing religious symbols such as the cross from text books having to do with the history of our country. The spaniards and others carried the cross and displayed it while exploring, fighting and settling the new world. Should we make believe that did not happen to appease those who are upset or offended by christianity? How about changing all the names of places in the USA that start with ST.?

    I think we should let the symbols that acknowledge respect and truth about the past, stand safe as proof of time gone by.

    Leave a comment:


  • ToUtahNow
    replied
    Re: Mojave Memorial Cross

    Originally posted by SpiffPeters View Post
    Were the symbol in question a crescent moon would the arguments be the same?
    I believe one would have to be pretty naive to not recognize there are those who are cheering for the cross as a Christian symbol and others who are cheering for the cross just because of the glee of the Ninth Circuit being overturned once again.

    The above said, historically crosses have been used to honor fallen heroes regardless of religious affiliation. This cross was erected by Veterans 76-years ago to honor those lost during WW I. There has been a 10-year battle over the cross and it appears the cross was going to be saved. Instead of accepting defeat a group of thieves decided their fight was more important than the law.

    Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • SpiffPeters
    replied
    Re: Mojave Memorial Cross

    Were the symbol in question a crescent moon would the arguments be the same?

    Leave a comment:


  • tailgunner
    replied
    Re: Mojave Memorial Cross

    Originally posted by SpiffPeters View Post
    UCLA or ACLU?
    ACLU. When I am wrong about something, it's consistant.

    Heh, fixed all my typos, but I did provide a link to the news article for the official statement.

    Leave a comment:


  • CWSmith
    replied
    Re: Mojave Memorial Cross

    Was it the ACLU, or some idiot who brought the case to the ACLU, like in past cases?

    From a legal perspective, I don't understand how or what any Federal court would even bother hearing this case.

    If, in fact, there was truly seperation of "church and state"... then the Federal government shouldn't be able to rule on the matter because it is of a religious nature.... or am I thinking in the extreme?

    I find absolutely nothing wrong with any religious symbol... seeing it doesn't make me change my beliefs, nor does it incite any riotous feelings within me.

    So, what are we going to do next.... visit every military battle field and veteran's cemetary and remove all of the Christian Crosses as well as the Star of Davids and other religious monuments?

    Such legal cases are beyond absurd, IMHO and I think that prosecution of this particular case should go to what ever extent to make an example for others... and then, this whole matter of "Church and State" should be left out of the courts. "Church and State" doesn't have to mean NO recognition of religion whatsoever, it simply means that we as a government will not prevent religion, will not invade the sanctity of the church, and will not persecute because of religious belief. Nor will we, the government, use religion to advance whatever policies or agenda that are in the interest of the government.

    CWS

    Leave a comment:


  • SpiffPeters
    replied
    Re: Mojave Memorial Cross

    UCLA or ACLU?

    Leave a comment:


  • tailgunner
    replied
    Re: Mojave Memorial Cross

    The ACLU if nothing else, defines the metaphor "Double edged sword". These people perform a noble cause in absolute terms, yet, they then pull off the most asinine stunts such as this that only ends up as a pyrific victory that only leaves the ACLU scorched.

    Case in point, here they are enforcing "separation of church and state" by the removal of a religious symbol off of public land, even though it's sole purpose was to serve as a memorial of veterens of World War One. Yet, as of yesterday, in another high profile case, the ACLU has come to the defence of a citizen over a First Amendment violation.

    Here is the story link:http://www.masslive.com/news/index.s...mmittee_2.html

    Folks, this event was brought forth by the Pheobe suicide case where constant humiliation, harrassment, and bullying was ruled the cause of this tragedy. Now keep in mind, and alot of people do not seem to understand this concept, the First Amendment only applies to communication between the government and it's citizens. So, what we had here was a public forum, held at a public office, where communication was being transferred between government officials and the citizens. Yet, certain subjects and certain people's names were forbidden from being mentioned. Naturally, this irritated many, even though everyone knew who the name belonged to. However, I am going to have to side with the ACLU with this one.

    In the end, the very mention of ACLU just makes me want to groan.
    Last edited by tailgunner; 05-11-2010, 09:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SpiffPeters
    replied
    Re: Mojave Memorial Cross

    Who is an enemy?

    Leave a comment:


  • cactusman
    replied
    Re: Mojave Memorial Cross

    I'm Jewish and have no issues with that cross! It's a monument of respect!
    I wonder when the goof balls will pull the crosses at Arlington?
    It is "public land" and well you know what I mean!

    For that matter when will they sand blast off all engravings related to the bible...old, new, rewritten or otherwise?

    Finally how can we hit a reset button to put this country back to where it should be?

    Let's take the enemies of our country and send the whole bunch to say Iran and see how long they last.

    Cactus Man

    Leave a comment:


  • ToUtahNow
    replied
    Re: Mojave Memorial Cross

    Originally posted by SpiffPeters View Post
    These vandals make me sick. I hope they are caught and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

    The crux of the problem is not the land swap. It is the fact the congress designated the cross a national memorial and retained a reversionary interest in the land. The owner of the land is required, by congress, to maintain the memorial.

    So we have a national memorial on private property and a congressional mandate that said private property shall be maintained by a private party.

    The court did not address the plaintiffs standing on the matter so a private citizen is free to challenge this ruling.
    It has to go back to the Ninth District so it will be interesting to see what happens there. I can see the problem with the mandate of the memorial but I think Congress wanted to make sure no one wanted the land for private interest. I'm sure the VFW will maintain it as a memorial and there won't be a problem.

    Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • SpiffPeters
    replied
    Re: Mojave Memorial Cross

    These vandals make me sick. I hope they are caught and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

    The crux of the problem is not the land swap. It is the fact the congress designated the cross a national memorial and retained a reversionary interest in the land. The owner of the land is required, by congress, to maintain the memorial.

    So we have a national memorial on private property and a congressional mandate that said private property shall be maintained by a private party.

    The court did not address the plaintiffs standing on the matter so a private citizen is free to challenge this ruling.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X