Thanks ACLU: War Memorial To Be Torn Down

Habitat for humanity should be paying? yes. How is that unreasonable? its land and there are tax burdens on all of us. Unless they cut the spending billions of dollars in foreign countries and focus on OUR problems first, our deficit will keep increasing. Oh and the illegal war in iraq due to lies. That would have helped ALOT.

How about you honor the dead your way, and don't tell us how to honor ours, ok?

That's your opinion, but it really has nothing to do with the case in question, either as a matter of law or of precedent.

In the US? omg that happens like... every day or so...

Minorities whine, riot and - in the end - usually win.

First, "oppressive state oppression" is not only redundant, it also fails to say anything.

Second, nobody is being oppressed here. The government ensures free exercise OF religion, not FROM religion.



Or, you know, not.



First of all, kudos for subtracting 1954 from 2006 and comming up with <30 as an answer.

The cross has been there all of my life, and the lives of many of my friends parents. It's never been an oppressive symbol, and at the least, it's a noteable landmark. Yes, it's important enough.

why do you hate America?

It also prevents establishment of an official religion. This memorial crossed the line in 1954 and it crosses it now.

RK: only answering someone's answer with the YMCA comment. Though really they should get no government money either.


YMCA: Young mens CHRISTIAN Association.

It establishes no official religion.

Yeah. I know.

What does that mean?

If it means I can't expect to walk down the street without seeing citizens epxressing thier religion (and that does include soldier's graves having a christian cross as a marker, as that obviously represents the individual put to rest there), then cool - seems a square and good deal.

If it means I have to tolerate the authority of government constantly reminding me that I'm NOT a real citizen becasue I've no religion or am of a minoroty religion, and that those like me do not count even when they laid down thier lives for thier country (Which would include one good man, killed in Viet Nam, buried here in a soldier's cemetary without a marker becasue his native american religion was unacceptable.)... then it seems immoral and reprehensible.

The forum today is a constant source of amusement and bewilderment. I simply cannot fathom the purported sensitivity displayed by some folks today. It boggles my mind how easy it is to get some people offended.
bleh

how about noone told you how to honor your dead. and we are discussing how our dead should be honored best. now you want to say that because the memorial is a cross that it dishonors the non-christians that fought. fine then i guess we should just forget that the majority of the ppl who have fought and died for this country ARE CHRISTIAN, now if yall don't like it, theres not a whole lot we should have to do about it. now heres why i find taking it down offensive, if you take it down you dishonor the christians who fought and died, you are making them seem like atheist when they were not. so is it right for you to force your believes on us yet when we express ours we are in the wrong? you want to change it, run for office!

i probably sound insensitive but i am tired of all this that "violates my religion stuff"

ok the YMCA was a bad example, how does Boys and Girls Club work for you?

I value your opinion and I'd seriously like to know why you think this crosses the line now, specifically. As I see it, this is a historical piece. I think that it's a lot different from someone putting the Ten Commandments in our courthouse insinuating that one must abide by Christian laws.

In a cemetery or memorial, the cross is used symbolically to show that lives were sacrificed, at least that is my take on it. Who knows what the artist truly intended without asking?

.

Whoah there tex. See whom I'm responding to -- hint, it wasn't you, or your point.

Except I would call the second possibility, to use a cliche, a "radical interperation of the text". I think its assigning motive and beliefs that don't exist to people who never meant anything of the sort.

Honoring our soldiers who have fallen in battle with the symbol of one religion certainly does establish an official religion.

I'm from Georgia btw, now i realize your post was for someone else, but i used it to help make my point.

1) historical or antique if you will refers to objects older than 100 years old. 1954 simply isn't "historical".

2) The fact that the "cross" is used symbolically to show that lives were sacrificed is offensive to me as a Jew.

Two things then:

One, please tell me what YOU mean when you use the "not from religion" thing. (was the intent of my first question)

Two, why does that soldier not have a marker after all these years unless he meant nothing, compared to his squad mates (all died in the same event) who have markers (three crosses and one star of david).

"whoah there, tex" is just a phrase. You could be from next door for all I care

We will have to agree to disagree, Kendra - to me it does nothing of the sort. Keeping in mind when the constiution was wrote and what the people who wrote it left behind - no, it's not even in the same realm was what they were talking about.

Hmmm kind of like Cindy Sheehan's son's grave? Just sayin'

just clearing that up lol, it only matters come football season

I don't get the reference.