Justices to decide if vets can be honored with cross
We read:
"Some see it as the universal symbol of sacrifice in World War I, others see it as the undisputed sign of Christianity, but it will be up to the Supreme Court to make a final determination as to whether a 7-foot cross remains standing in a California desert to memorialize war veterans. The cross was first erected in 1934 in what is now the federally protected Mojave Desert Preserve by a group of veterans whose doctors advised them that the desert heat would help them recover from shell shock.....
"People of every faith have fought and died for this country," says Peter Eliasberg, counsel for the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. "Yet we will have veterans divided about the idea of how you reflect the sacrifice of American veterans." "For us to choose the principal symbol of one religion that says Jesus is the Son of God and He is divine and say that is an appropriate way to reflect the sacrifice of people who don't believe that ... is excluding by its very nature," Mr. Eliasberg said.
At a gathering last week at the National Press Club, just before the Memorial Day weekend, several veterans organizations made their case for why the Supreme Court should rule in their favor during its next session, which begins in October. "This Memorial Day is more than just a three-day weekend at the beach," Mr. Davis said. "This is about remembrance."
Source
I wonder what symbol the ACLU has in mind as representing all faiths? A combination of a cross, a Star of David and an Islamic crescent could be quite a mess -- and please no-one. A lot of Indians fought in WWI and WWII on the allied side and their most favoured symbol is a swastika. You can see swastikas all around Bombay. How would that go?
18 comments:
Does Mr. Eliasberg feel the rows of six-sided stars over the graves or our veterans in Normandy are also inappropriate?
Here's another question. When was the last time you saw an ACLU lawyer who was not a jew?
"When was the last time you saw an ACLU lawyer who was not a jew?"
When was the last time you saw a conservative who was not an asshole?
When was the last time you saw a conservative who was not an asshole?I am not sure that the comment made by "Fed Up" is from a conservative, but he certainly is a sphincter muscle.
Anonymous 1:30 AM: I guess it takes one to know one - asshole that is.
Ah, the intellectual level of this discussion is exhilerating.
Keep it up guys. Or gals, whichever you are.
First to set matters straight, I am a Conservative Libertarian of the Ayn Rand ilk, an atheist, and I am a US Army veteran, served 1968 to 1970. I am very angered by religion symbolism as it relates to veterans. Theists and atheist both served so why show religious symbolism of only some? The Wall in DC does not show religious symbolism. As for the veteran’s organizations representing veterans, I was denied membership in our local American Legion because I did not have an active religious membership. The denial came from the membership chairman who was not a veteran but a “Son of the American Legion” member. Therefore I now feel that the American Legion for one does not represent all veterans but only some and their nonveteran offspring.
"an atheist, and I am a US Army veteran, served 1968 to 1970. I am very angered by religion symbolism as it relates to veterans. Theists and atheist both served so why show religious symbolism of only some?"
So Old Bob, what symbol of religion should they put up for an atheist? As for your comment about the American Legion, I know that's horse puckey. I am agnostic and I belong to both the Legion, AmVets and the local branch of the Viet Nam veterans association. No where on any of the forms was a question about an religion, all they wanted was my DD 214, my retirement ID to verify my rank and years of service, branch and where I served.
Eddy MSGT.
USMC(retired)
67-89
Why would it have to be a religious symbol at all?
Most religions seem to condemn violent behaviour, at least that behaviour not done directly in service of the religion. And no recent wars (in the last 100 years fought by the west) can be said to meet this criteria.
Why not just use the poppy symbol? We use it on Rememberance day. Why not all the time?
This memorial was put up by private parties who happened to adhere to a particular religion, the ACLU or the government have no business telling them what to do.
It was also put up more than 60 years ago, and only now do the Islamofascists and communists start to complain about it.
I guess they want it replaced with the hammer and sickle, eclipsed by a crescent moon.
If you read the article you would discover that the cross isn't the original monument.
The original monument was wooden, this one is now metal. My keen powers of deduction tell me that the monument has been replaced in the last 60 years.
Also, the monument is now on GOVERNMENT land, and isn't just sitting in someone's field.
However. IF the vets who were sent out into the desert were all Christians, and the monument is one to them and not to ALL vets, then there's no real problem with this monument.
But, if there's one athiest soldier or one from another religion on that list, it should be neutral.
If you read the article you would discover that the cross isn't the original monument.Correct. The original was vandalized by those less than tolerant of people's religious views. A new cross was erected.
Also, the monument is now on GOVERNMENT land, and isn't just sitting in someone's field.Correct again. Yet there is precedence for allowing what once was private property to retain its historical elements. The National Park Service maintains many historical sites where there are crosses or other religious symbols that were placed before the area was taken over by the government.
But, if there's one athiest soldier or one from another religion on that list, it should be neutral.If one soldier from that list wants to put up something that represents his beliefs, I would be for that. However, to tear down history because someone is "offended" is actually changing histroy and basically an abomination.
"When was the last time you saw an ACLU lawyer who was not a jew?"Anthony Romero, is currently executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Haven't heard too many Jews by that name.
"However, to tear down history because someone is "offended" is actually changing histroy and basically an abomination."
But it's already been torn down at least once. And since it clearly can be torn down, perhaps it should be replaced by a more permanent structure. One that is perhaps more worthy of their sacrifice than a couple of two by fours and a metal bracket.
"The original was vandalized by those less than tolerant of people's religious views. A new cross was erected."
Well, you don't know that. It could have just been punk kids out for a laugh. They do that sort of thing you know.
But it's already been torn down at least once. And since it clearly can be torn down, perhaps it should be replaced by a more permanent structure.The original has been replaced by a steel one that is anchored and welded into the ground.
Well, you don't know that. It could have just been punk kids out for a laugh. They do that sort of thing you know.Actually, we do know that. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the cross represents something and then when it is attacked, just say that it was a random attack on an object without meaning.
If the cross does mean something, than its destruction or defacing is an attack not only on the physical item, but what it represents.
It is an action demonstrating a lack of respect and a lack of tolerance.
You can't claim to know what the motives of the vandals were, UNLESS you were one of the vandals. Are you admitting to something here?
Yes, it MAY have been vandalised for it's christian symbolism. It MAY also have been that some kids got tired of knocking mailboxes over with a baseball bat and decided to do something a little larger scale.
Lack of respect, undeniably. Lack of tolerance, no evidence at this time.
Lack of respect, undeniably. Lack of tolerance, no evidence at this time.Then there cannot be a claim that the cross represents anything. Either it represents a religion as some have claimed, and the there was a lack of tolerance....
OR
the cross doesn't represent anything in which case people have no claim to any supposed first amendment / establishment clause violation.
Life must really be a pain when you want everything to be black and white huh?Life must be a pain when you don't realize that you can't split the baby in two.
When was the last time you saw a conservative who was not an asshole?
Pretty much all the time, and rarely more than 5 minutes ago. The real rarity is coming across an asshole who turns out to also be conservative.
Post a Comment