who the hell cares. Get a life. I am really sick to death of this crap. More important things to get in an uproar about

I'd better not cross my fingers anymore for luck, lest I fall into the wicked hands of some Xian cult. Do these idiots take lessons from the Taliban, I wonder.

picking on Veterans' memorials, especially one like this that is specifically dedicated to 49 people who were most likely Christians. Nonetheless, Atheists pushing their agenda onto public property is ridiculous. So put up an atheist symbol and be done with it, but leave others alone.

a radical atheist organization indicates you don't know what you are talking about. AHA is one of the most docile groups toward religion to the point of being apologetic. One of the reasons I moved my membership to the Council for Secular Humanism.

And of course all Americans who died in any war are christians. Such hubris on your part but that does not surprise me!

"And of course all Americans who died in any war are christians." And where you got that, I have no idea.

You pretty much nailed it right there.

Guess they must be feeling disrespected, huh?

similar to some of your posts in this thread.

it would be just as easy to debate a brick wall. He is not going to see the other side no matter what evidence anyone presents.

if we don't have crosses everywhere, "under God" in the pledge and "In God we trust" on the money?

Oh yes my darlings, doom and misery ahead from all loving bible god if we don't have signs of our subjugation and adoration everywhere!!1!

Julie--who marvels at how much middle-ages mindset that is still with us

Sincerely,

Justice Scalia

with all the discrimination against non-believers that we hear about and some of the truly egregious actions within legislatures, school boards and public schools, it seems like they could find something more important to spend their time and money on.

Or, and here is a simple solution, sell the land to someone and make it private property.

and other nonsense.

The other honored 49 soldiers and dishonored no one.

just depends on you view point.

and more projection on your part.

I just read your post, and when you made a bigoted statement, I called you on it. If you don't want me to call you a bigot, the solution is simple and entirely in your own hands. If you stop expressing your bigotry, I will have no cause to call you a bigot.

All I said was some people might have a different veiw point. I did not say that I or anyone else held this view point. That does not make it a bigoted statement. What you are really saying is I am a bigot and I reject that outright. I would say more projection on your part.

I assumed that you had said something you believed. Since you were only saying "Some people might say ...", I was wrong in saying that you were expressing your own belief. I shall try not to jump so quickly to judgement.

destroying ancient Buddhist holy sites because they couldn't tolerate their presence or the way atheists destroyed holy sites in Russia because they couldn't be tolerated. Any difference here?

Just depends on your point of view.

Would you also then destroy Native American religious sites that exist on public lands?

1. The Taliban and USSR were much different government systems without the checks and balances our constitution has had in place in for centuries. That this case is being pursued because of one the checks and balances being ignored is something you gleefully ignore. In fact, in your example, it is those putting up the cross in spite of the constitutional check against it that are more like the Taliban.

2. The Native American argument is just bullshit. Their religious sites are only public lands because we fucked them so badly along the way. It wasn't put up after it was public land.

In fact, the interpretation of religious symbols on public property is a fairly recent interpretation and it has not always been so.

Therefore, if you take down one religious symbol on public land you must disallow others, otherwise you are a hypocrite.

So are you saying that the cross memorial is on Native American land? In that case, you had better move because you are squatting on Native American land.

So you are a constitutional literalist? Do you complain the same about the Commerce Clause? Do you think the FDR rulings were unjust?

I'm saying that the Native American example you brought up is different. And, yes, I am living on what was Native American land. I don't pretend I'm not. To say that a religious site that existed before the U.S. was even a country has to be removed because we fucked the Native Americans out of their land (or we put them on a reservations, they made it a religious site, and then we realized the land had some value so we took it from them again) is just you grasping at straws.

You reasoned that Native American sites were not on public lands when they were constructed.

Well then? Neither was the memorial cross.

Now if you are going to continue in that line of thinking, then you are indeed discriminating against one group over another. And to be honest, I have little sympathy for those who mess with veterans' memorials.

that says that when this cross was built it wasn't on public land? Because I haven't read that anywhere.

And as to messing with veterans' memorials, do you also not have little sympathy for those memorials that completely ignore some of the veterans that gave their lives or are you only concerned with those memorials that deal with Christian soldiers. And please, please, please don't give me the line that this isn't a religious monument.

what or who is stopping such memorials from being constructed?

This is definitely worth the the fight against radical atheist groups or any group that would support such a position. No different that the examples cited earlier.

This is a religious monument on public land. It's endorsement. Who's stopping them? Apparently the government since they are putting up 40-foot (yeah, forty fucking feet tall) crosses to honor Christian veterans.

"worth the fight against radical atheist groups" Yeah, it must be tough to live in a world where nobody has the voice to say anything about a FORTY FUCKING FOOT TALL CROSS ON PUBLIC LAND for 80 years. Look out for the nasty atheists because they can actually say something.

Answer: No one. Yeh, it's definitely worth the fight.

That is NOT the standard for endorsement nor entanglement.

lay ahead. Native American symbols will have to come down, as well as all religious symbolism at Arlington, and all references to religion on any public property. Congressional chaplains will have to go too.

Yes, this is definitely worth the fight.

And just as a reminder, not all Democrats are radical atheists, nor do they all support the agenda.

uses that standard. Got it. Is that the standard you WISH they would use?

And the religious symbolism at Arlington is different, as I and others have explained numerous times, because the INDIVIDUAL gets to pick their emblem. Or are you perhaps thinking of the Normandy graves?

Not all Democrats are radical atheists. But your position on this is starkly different than what Madison and Jefferson wanted, so I feel comfortable sitting with them on this.

non-contradictory through time. BTW, the congressional chaplaincy was established even while Jefferson and Madison were still very relevant.

and vital to the framing of the constitution. And both of them were opposed to the chaplaincy. Madison didn't even think that ministers should be able to be elected officials because of the breach of the church/state wall it would create.

And, again, I'm happy to be on their side in this issue. YMMV.

is most people back in the day would have never crossed the religious tyranny in the US. Now people realize that religious freedom included freedom from religion as our founders had expressed.

I say take down all religious symbols on public land with the exception of the native Americans. I believe that is a special situation because of the genocidal policy of the United States in the 1700s and 1800s with the support of the religious in this country. Also get the "In god We Trust" off our currency.

It seems you do not believe in separation of church and state therefore your hypocrisy is far more damaging then Goblinmonger's or mine. Your lack of respect for the US Constitution is appalling.

We are all "squatters' on native American land to some extent or another. At this point it is a little late in the game to do much about it. Your argument is weak.

then there would be no chaplains in the U.S. Congress. It was most certainly "our founders" who created such positions in government. Your understanding of history is a little warped.

but there are too many religious right wing nuts in the Congress so not much can be done at this time. Do you side with the likes of Senator Inhofe and his ilk?

that there has never been an "absolute" separation of C and S in the United States, nor is one suggested in the Constitution.

Just interested in which side of the aisle you stand on. I think the distinguished Senator Inhofe would have similar views on religion as you have expressed.

argument is still a glaring straw man.

And while was not explicitly in the Constitution, the Constitution has repeatedly been interpreted by the Supreme Court as saying it. See, for example, Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878) which says in part

Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.

there would be no congressional chaplain, nor any religious references on any government property, nor any "free exercise" clause.

Absolute separation has never existed in the United States.

Pretty clear straw man.

it depends on your point of view. I did not express my point of view.

The WTC cross is one thing. Going back 80 years reminds me of the baptism of the dead.

it is 80 years in the coming.

Last edited Sat Sep 15, 2012, 12:07 AM - Edit history (1)

I say leave it there and keep to fighting anything new going on state land

what's going to keep all the vampires out?

like the cross? Put up your own memorial.

therefore a violation of the 1st Amendment.

If the cross were on nonpublic land, the atheists would have nothing to grumble about. Of course, no such sensible thing will ever take place.

that wanted it for the same amount of money. That might not even satisfy everyone because the cross itself is worth a lot and the other folks might want their monument paid for too.

Could be very interesting.

Don't bet on the latter. They HAVE spoken out, but the religious choose to ignore what they have said. It doesn't suit their religious agenda.

Pat Tillman was an atheists and there are and have been many in the military.

And by the way you mispelled atheist.

From the book Citizen Soldiers by Stephen Ambrose, about the WWII fighting in Europe:

Pvt. Keith Lance of the 84th Div. was that rare creature, an atheist in a foxhole. His buddy was "a good Catholic boy from upstate NY." They were being shelled and the buddy "Hailed Mary" all night.

"After taking so many hours of that," Lance commented, he had had enough, so he dashed out of the foxhole to "check on the guys." As he threw himself into the next hole, Lance heard an explosion. He looked, aghast--it had hit his old hole. His buddy was badly wounded...

Then there's this...

not clear from the article. Have you seen any information on that part of the story.

Page 3.

http://www.heritage.umd.edu/chrsweb/ATHA/Port%20Towns%20Resource%20Files/NR%20NOMINATIONS/PG-69-16_Peace%20Cross.pdf

In 1922 the County conveyed the site to the American Legion. I don't know about subsequent transfers.

of cement and marble to recall the forty-nine men of Prince George’s County who died in World War I. The cross was dedicated on July 13, 1925, by the American Legion. A bronze tablet at the base of the monument contains the unforgettable words of Woodrow Wilson: “The right is more precious than the peace; we shall fight for the things we have always carried nearest our hearts; to such a task we dedicate ourselves.” At the base of the monument are the words, “Valor, Endurance, Courage, Devotion.” At its heart, the cross bears a great gold star.
http://townofbladensburg.com/cms/memorial-cross/

The Bladensburg Peace Cross was erected by the citizens of Prince George’s County in 1922, and was dedicated on July 13th, 1923. Ceremonies were held at the cross, and with the assistance fo the American Legion of Bladensburg, Snyder-Farmer post, which included survivors of The Great War, Fourth Maryland regiment. Representative Stephen W. Gambrill of Maryland spoke, lauding the efforts and honoring the sacrifice of those who died, saying: “You men of Prince Georges county fought for the sacred right of all to live in peace and security.”
http://www.welovedc.com/2010/05/28/monumental-bladensburg-peace-cross/