Thanks ACLU: War Memorial To Be Torn Down

Who the fuck are you to tell ME to get perspective? Unless you can tell me that every single soldier being memorialized there was a christian --then that memorial was out of line no matter when it was erected.


Kudos to the ACLU.

Relax Kendra. You're being unreasonable again.

As an atheist, I have no issues with a 52-year old cross memorial, either. There are more important issues in this country than squabbling over the symbols we used in another era to memorialize our dead.

This guy's not the only one giving atheists a bad name, though. He has plenty of company -- the problem is that there are so few of us, and our beliefs (or lack thereof) so out of the mainstream that our Christian counterparts tend to look sane, even when they're not.

any of yall ever been to Arlington? in Arlington the "crosses" for non-christians do display thier religious symbol, unless it is unknown. for example the graves of Jewish soldiers have a star of David instead of the crossmember. now it would make more sense to use the symbol of the MAJORITY of those being remembered does it not? if you have a limited space and/or funding and the cross on the grave is a pretty much universal headstone wether your christian, jewish or muslim. oh and FYI it predates christianity so yall need to settle down and get a grip on reality

Thank you Kiamat, and Cindy, they could erect a second memorial. Its actually how I would prefer to see it done.

can an atheist explain why it bothers them, since they don't believe in anything religious, why does it bother you? i don't understand why a 40something year old memorial to soldiers from an era when 75% of the population was christian bothers yall. oh and i thought this country was a majority rule system

"Why should there be an equal amount, Jonas? There isn't an equal amount of, say, christians to shinto soldiers, so..."

How about keeping religious symbols out of war memorials altogether?

"Well, 1/5 of the soldiers were Jewish, so we need to put a star in that's 1/5 of the size of the cross"...

What a waste of time. Leave it all out.

"I see no evidence that the City of San Diego is showing preferential treatment for one religion over others."

Government land, money and resources is spent erecting and maintaining a religious symbol for one religion, but not others, in the memory of a group of people for whom that religion may not have been part of their lives, who died in the name of a country that does not believe that their government should interfere with a man's personal relationship with their spiritual beliefs.

So tell me how there isn't preferential treatment in here?

Musuko.

Cindy, federal overshadows state. State overshadows city. Not the other way around. States rights died when the north took the south over and big federal kicked in.

Billy, then can you explain to me why the lack of government endorsement should offend christians? Oh yes, because then the taxpayers wouldn't be supporting their churches anymore..

What I keep wondering is, aren't there better things to spend *17 years* fighting against? What kind of pathetic, angry life does this guy have?



Why do they keep blocking it, I wonder? It'd solve the problem nicely.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html



http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/H/1954uk/chap3.htm


hum wonders ... When This Country was Based on religion .. ECt ... And when most on the death Beds ect ... no matter who you are are always praying for forgiveness at the end our your lives ??

That some thing that is so Funny So Just make you wonder ??

You mean like civil rights? Oh wait, this -is- a civil rights issue.

Maybe they should erect a 29 foot broom beside it.

*He shoots... he scores*

In which case you would say "I believe this country is going to hell." since the literal existance of hell is a matter of belief.
Had your statement been figurative I might be inclined to agree.

As far as I'm concerned, this monument is a historical object by now and should stand. Maybe I would feel different if the guy bringing the lawsuit was a *Korean War* veteran.

If he is really concerned about the interpretation of the memorial maybe he could fight for the inclusion of a plaque explaining the choice of the symbol?

I feel the removal of the memorial is an attempt to censor the past. I think we need to be able to look at history and see both the good and the bad things we have done in the past and also be able to understand how perceptions of what is acceptable have changed. Judging those in the past by modern standards is wrong.

Zuzu, they should have simply errected a second memorial dedicated to all the veterans as well, directly beside it.


Eternal Flame anyone?

"What I keep wondering is, aren't there better things to spend *17 years* fighting against? What kind of pathetic, angry life does this guy have?"

I doubt he spent the entirety of those 17 years fighting against it.

"hum wonders ... When This Country was Based on religion .. "

No. Your country was based on the free exercise of religion without state oppression. To replace one oppressive state oppression with another would be a betrayal of that ideal.

Fight the link between church and state in all its forms, even the benign, because once you give an inch, they'll take a mile.

"As far as I'm concerned, this monument is a historical object by now and should stand."

How old is it? If it's old enough and of enough importance to get listed status, then yes. Otherwise, it really shouldn't. I mean, it can't be more than 30 years old? You have parking garages older than that.

Musuko.

He is probably compensating for something.

"He is probably compensating for something."

Oh come on. All he wants is a giant erection to be torn down.

Musuko.

Because it's an insult to all the non-Christians who fought and died. The memorial should honor the soldiers, not the Christian god.

woah jonas, tell me this what government agency endorses christianity and not other religions? and since you can't name the agency why would losing thier endorsement offend us? we aren't endorsed right now so how can losing something we don't have offend us?

now this is not a civil rights issue, its about church-state seperation. and there is a difference. nobody is saying he can't go to the memorial because he is atheist, nobody is saying that since he is atheist he can't do anything or hold a job or anything like that. that is what a civil rights case is. i have one question though, why can't he you know not visit it or say find another way around it or oh i don't know move? thats what i do when i see something that offends me, i avoid it. for example I am offended by most of the current rap songs, so what do i do? i listen to country instead. i'm sorry but it just seems like this atheist is just trying to piss off ppl.

The IRS does.

Lets tax all religious properties rather than support them with taxes here people!

Just because you're a church doesnt mean you shouldn't pay property taxes. And yes, that applies to all faiths.

hey its not that they are a church genius, they are NON-Profit organizations which are tax exempt, now if thats the way you feel i guess the YMCA has to get taxed as well?

It's 52 years old.

What I want to know is WHY they won't let the land under it be sold to a non-profit organization (who is willing to buy it). That really would solve this whole problem.

YMCA should too. your point? The only property that should be exempt is government land.

I think Chip, that in 1954, this sincerely is what they intended; to honor the soldiers - not to push an agenda.

Personally, I would prefer a reserved portion of a forest with a moument with their names or something but look around the country. Not all memorials to the fallen are crosses, some are statues, others are monuments, others are walls.

This is a historical piece, to remove it is like disturbing the dead. We will have also lost something, in the same way that we do when they tear out historical old buildings and put in Starbucks. I'm probably not explaining it well, but anyway, it's chipping away at our countrys character in some way.

.

now your just being unreasonable, so say Habitat for Humanity should pay taxes on the land they build houses for the poor on?even though they provide something that the government is not able to do effectively. just because atheist don't need a place to congrate the rest of us need to pay taxes? when did the believes of the minority trample those of the majority? on a side note do you know how much charity oragnizations are run out of and in conjunction with churches?