Thanks ACLU: War Memorial To Be Torn Down

A comment to your post

http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/deuteronomy_28_49.htm

You want me to call you African American, you call me European American.

Yeah, they are religious, but they demonstrate that the cross is not just a Christian symbol. It is not a symbol that only represents CHRIST. It is a symbol that many cultures across many millenia have shared. It is a symbol that holds significant meaning for humans (in general).

lol im white ... i just hate races ... being compalired to a box of crayons .... to me ... i know ... it may not matter to most ppl ... but it does me ....

i have had Afrian Aerican friends and they hated the term black


but to each there own

Champie: I said the only NONRELIGIOUS use was for execution. I DONT CARE about other RELIGIONS.

Zephria: I use black, becaus eits the skin tone.

just another tidbit

Ok. I don't think there is any harm in recognizing that the symbol of the cross has held significant meaning for many cultures from the dawn of man. Perhaps you don't think that is significant, but I subscribe to ideas of "Archetype" and "Collective Unconscious". That means that I beleive evidence of symbols recurring throughout history and across a multitude of distinct cultures indicates that there is something uniquely powerful and important about them.

"all humans have a common psychological predisposition."

There is something wrong however with using a religious symbol on a war memorial to all soldiers of a given era.

Bwahahaha!

You are a piece of work there, Uncle Jack.

When can I expect the apology?

And since we're hanging onto the past here:



You haven't changed much have you Champ? In fact, I now think the only reason you apologized back then, was because you were trying to save face, not because you really meant it.

I am going to point out something about that thread you linked - you solicted opinions - you then went on to behave like an unmitigated ass when you got some, with avuncular, ridiculing, and condescending bullshit. You showed your true colors bud, thanks for that. If you had cared to ask or look, I have come out strongly against the death penalty in many many threads in these forums. There are some cases though, every decade or so, where I have to question my beliefs. I know that is a horrifying prospect for someone who is so dogmatic, but there it is Champ.

You are without a doubt, one of the most insulting and condescending posters I have ever had the misfortune of reading.

You are still a verbally abusive and mean-spirited participant in these forums. Get over yourself, you're not more right, or smarter than everyone else, despite the smug attitude you like to project to bolster your own obvious feelings of insecurity and shortcoming. We are exchanging opinions here, not the truths of the Universe. Get a life.

I have always treated you with respect and not used direct insults towards you. As you can see, that has ended today. But no worries for either of us, because from now on you're in my own personal cornfield. Problem solved.

Ciao Uncle Jack.

I think trying to argue that this particular monument isn't promoting Christianity because crosses of various sorts have been used as symbols throughout the ages is pretty disingenuous. In that context it is undeniably a Chrisitan symbol and was intended as such. I don't know why it was built in the first place but I'm going to assume it wasn't "behold the giant ankh!"

Bingo.

It's reaching, in the furthest degree.

It's similar reasoning to neo-nazis going on about buddhists using the swastika.

It's all about intent, despite the obvious attempts to divert attention from that fact.

I don't disagree with you and Chip that it isn't a good argument for this memorial.

If you look back, I was presenting information that supports my argument that the cross is not JUST A CHRISTIAN symbol, but a universal symbol that has meaning beyond the Christian meaning

I disagree.

I do think it's somewhat rude to the (highly likely) minority of soldiers that weren't Christian that died in the conflict... but again, that's beside the point.

No disrespect to any of you arguing the point... but have any of you actually BEEN to this monument?

It's tawdry and cheap looking, and an embarassment to both those it pays tribute and to the faith that it represents.

But... no baby is ugly to it's own mother, and people (particularly Americans it seems) will fight to defend any 'symbol' as if it were the actual real representation of what it stands for.

If we were less pre-occupied with defending symbols... and more concerned about defending what they represented, perhaps there'd be a few more flag burnings... and far less phone tappings.

--
Bring the ugly thing down.

Wow, I never thought that I could have reached such a Plateau, especially among the SL community.

Yes, I live in San Diego and I have been there. I agree that it could use some beautification. I disagree with you on everything else.

Or less of both

Sometimes people lose their common sense over the most trivial things. Symbols are trivial. Real issues - important issues - tend to fall victim to emotions.

Wow... really? Everything ?

Hmm. Even the part about babies not being ugly to their mothers?

Of course, my opinion is also tainted by knowing that two friends of mine were mugged and beaten up while trying to enjoy the view of the ocean and La Jolla from the base of this monument.

Perhaps a neglected and ugly symbol of the Christain faith IS apropriate for the spot.

Hmf.

Well, lets see. You were clearly using the "babies not being ugly to their mothers" in a figurative sense. In that context, I disagree. In fact, even literally I disagree. There is nothing that prevents a mother from perceiving her child as ugly, though she may never express it openly.

I'm sorry your friends were mugged, but as you seem to understand, that really has no bearing on the appropriateness of the memorial.

Firstly, as I'm sure you know, any and all treaties once ratified become part of the constitution. Clearly our founding fathers intended for this to be a secular nation politically and an open nation religiously.

As far as the words "Seperation of church and state" in the constitution, please examine The Bill of Rights amendment one, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If this isn't a speration of church and state, than I'm not sure what is. To me it means there is to be a wall between church and state. The government will not make a law establishing any religion, but on the other side of the wall, you are protected to practice freely and will not be prohibited by the goverment. Please tell me what YOU think this means Kiamat. The actual words "sepereation of Church and State" were coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter. This is clearly what the framers had in mind when they wrote the 1st Amendment.

Look, I have no issues with christians or other faiths, in fact I can respect those that believe in a power greater than themselves even if I don't understand them. What really bugs me is when they politicize their ideas and try to force their beliefs on the rest of us.
That's how I see the placing of a christian cross as a war memorial. Why would you want to connect your god to a war in the first place? You really think some god is looking down on america and blessing all our little wars? That's not the kind of god I'd want to believe in if I had the capacity to believe in one.


I'd also like to apologize for being rather bombastic in my earlier post and for insulting you Kiamat. That was wrong of me. One of the things that makes this country great is our freedom to disagree with each other, question authority, and generally gnash our teeth when we want to be heard. In fact, it would unpatriotic of us to not do so.

Symbols only have meaning when placed in some kind of context. If you were in Berlin in the 40's, you'd undersatnd clearly that the swatstika(sp?) is a symbol of the Nazi Party where as if you were to see the same symbol 400 years earlier in Tibet, you'd know that it meant something else entirely.
Yes, various crosses were used throughout history, long before christianity was on the scene, but it's intellectually dishonest to claim that this huge cross is not meant to be seen as a christian symbol. Remember context. Who errected the cross? I'd bet good money it was proposed, sponsored and probably even funded by some christian group. Who are the ones asking that it be removed? People not of the christian faith right? It's obviously offensive to some americans for a reason, not because it's just some universal cross meant to be taken any which way.

I am not arguing that the Cross is anything but a Christian Cross.

The whole question about the universal nature of the cross was really a side discussion. You should go back and read the posts that led to the discussion. Also, you'll find that I was accused of the same thing by another poster, and I relpied in the same way I am replying here.

I'll post the quotes in a few minutes
edit: ok this posts are just up the page #333 & #334 & #335

It should be torn down, period, because it shows a government endorsement.

[/b]

Here is the post where I say that it is not an argument for the memorial

Sorry Jack. I re-read that portion of the thread. Seems I was preaching at the converted. =)

np Demi (Priapus?). Digressions get hard to follow in a fast moving 24 page thread. I had to go back and make sure that I didn't mix them together at some point.