Wednesday, September 30, 2009



Another perversion of the meaning of establishing a church

The constitutional prohibition was written to forbid the government endorsing one particular denomination as the true faith -- which was the status of the "established" Church of England in Britain at the time. Nothing like that has ever been contemplated in America
"It would be easy to miss among the yucca and Joshua trees of this vast place -- a small plywood box, set back from a gentle curve in a lonesome desert road. It looks like nothing so much as a miniature billboard without a message.

But inside the box is a 6 1/2 -foot white cross, built to honor the war dead of World War I. And because its perch on a prominent outcropping of rock is on federal land, it has been judged to be an unconstitutional display of government favoritism of one religion over another.

Whether the Mojave cross is ever unveiled again -- or taken down for good -- is up to the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Next week, it will get its first major chance to divine the meaning of the First Amendment command that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

If the court reaches the constitutional issues at hand, all sides agree it could provide clarity to the court's blurry rules on church-and-state separations. It could also carry important implications for the fate of war memorials around the country that feature religious imagery -- the Argonne Cross in Arlington National Cemetery, for instance, or the Memorial Peace Cross in Bladensburg.

The Mojave cross's protectors, which include veterans groups and the federal government, say the symbol is a historic, secular tribute; its original plaque from the 1930s said it was erected to honor "the dead of all wars." They argue that Congress has taken the steps to distance itself from any appearance of endorsing a religious display.

But the American Civil Liberties Union, Jewish and Muslim veterans, and others say government actions have only deepened the problem. In an effort to avoid the lower courts' rulings that it must come down, Congress has designated the site the country's only official national memorial to the dead of World War I, elevating it to an exclusive group of national treasures that includes the Washington Monument and Mount Rushmore.

Source

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Of course, if this were about a jewish or muslim symbol, no one would dare bring it up.

The time has come for America to have another internal cleansing, and once again, that can only be done by force of arms.

Anonymous said...

"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it..."

Anonymous said...

It reminds me of what he Taliban did to those Budah statues

Anonymous said...

We won last November. You lost. Suck it up and be a man about it, instead of blabbering about armed insurrection.

David W. Hunter said...

Anonymous folks:

Third from the bottom is the selection box where you can put your name. Why not own up to your opinions?

Anonymous said...

"Why not own up to your opinions?"

Because I don't fucking feel like it.

Anonymous said...

The same way you feel about 'thinking' in general? Just don't feel like it, eh?

~darko

Anonymous said...

"The same way you feel about 'thinking' in general? Just don't feel like it, eh?"

Do you actually believe that your pathetic attempt to "upset" me works, dittohead?

Anonymous said...

Since the concept of "Separation of church and state" was extracted from the writings of Thomas Jefferson, why aren't his thoughts and writing on the need for term limits amongst the elected also be held up for action?

Just asking...

The Jeffersonian Perspective

The Jeffersonian Perspective said...

..ok, that link didn't work:
http://eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco33.htm

also click name

David W. Hunter said...

Anon 2:50, "Because I don't fucking feel like it."

Wow. Did I hit a nerve?

Could it be you have nothing to say other than profane insults? I wouldn't sign my name to that either.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 1:35 and 2:25, This did not start with the election of the one. This has been going on a lot longer than that. It has nothing to do with who won last November. There is nothing wrong with this symbol and has been around for a great number of years. If someone takes offense to it, they just don't have to look at it. It has nothing to do with a state establishment of a religion.

Maverick said...

Even as a non Cchristian, I think that remove this is just a cry for attention of lack of conviction in ones own beleifs. Just like I do not like Christians, Catholics and others calling me a bad or less than moral person becasue I do not follow their beliefs, I do not feel it is appropriate to tell others they can not express their beliefs. But, personally, even thought the beliefs are differant from mine, I would still apprecitate the well wishing that is meant to be passed by something like this. Leave the cross alone, it will not hurt you by being there, but to try to force its removal will bring the ill wishes of others upon you.

Use the Name, Luke said...

Two trash posts in a row. Lame. Very lame.

Trash talking is not making valid points: only showing yourselves as someone to be ignored.

Anonymous said...

Ok - back to actual dialogue about the issue...
How is this cross a breach of the amendment?
The only thing I can think of is that the cross is a sectarian symbol. But is it?
To my way of thinking a cross can be seen as a symbol of Christianity or it could merely be a memorial marker. It is only the association that might cause problems - not the actual symbol itself.

Anonymous said...

Anon, 2.50 AM

"Because I don't fucking feel like it."


WAAAAH!

Soother (dummy) spit across the room, soft toys fly in all directions, diaper (nappie) filled to excess!

The little imp has made his/her feelings known!

By: bogsidebunny

Anonymous said...

Happy Blasphemy Day, everyone!