High Court Rules Cross Can Stand in Mojave

[afterhours]

I am not religious, nor do I believe in a supreme being. With that said, I DO believe the, and ALL crosses should be left alone. They were erected for the men and women who fought and died for our country, I see it as an expression of respect, not religion...........

by saying the crosses are a sign of respect, or not of a christian nature...as one US Supreme Court tried to say, aren't you ignoring the very specific intent that those that placed the monument, and those that support are championing?

the "pro-cross" people are saying, that this is a religous symbol, we are christian country....

 

[aussiekeeper]

Not interested in the "Christian Perspective". I see it as a form of respect. It is a universal sign of ones passing here in the U.S. Through history, the simple cross has been the landmark used for this purpose. It is simple and elegant in its design. And can quickly and easily be used for travelers that have lost their own (from a historical point). Religion means nothing to me, it has been used for pain, murder, war, slavery, genocide, etc. Religion, in my opinion, should be outlawed. But that is just me..............

 

[afterhours]

Not interested in the "Christian Perspective". I see it as a form of respect. It is a universal sign of ones passing here in the U.S. Through history, the simple cross has been the landmark used for this purpose. It is simple and elegant in its design. And can quickly and easily be used for travelers that have lost their own (from a historical point). Religion means nothing to me, it has been used for pain, murder, war, slavery, genocide, etc. Religion, in my opinion, should be outlawed. But that is just me..............

thats fine....but the people that put it there, and are argueing to keep there see it as a religious symbol...that is why there is an issue.

 

[skydivr]

thats fine....but the people that put it there, and are argueing to keep there see it as a religious symbol...that is why there is an issue.

The people that put it there...80 years ago...are dead...

 

[TaxMan]

Religion means nothing to me, it has been used for pain, murder, war, slavery, genocide, etc. Religion, in my opinion, should be outlawed. But that is just me..............

Yup, more people have been killed in the name of God (any form you prefer) than anything else.

Religion to me is just one of the earliest forms of government, and to quote Bill Hicks "all govenrments are lying c******kers, I hope you know that"

Got no problems with anyones beliefs until they try and force them on their neighbors.

Believe what you like and leave everyone else to do the same!

 

[HT_USMC]

most people do not pray at school, but when they hear a case of prayer being banned at school they become outraged. why?

That's like your mother telling you in December that you can't wear shorts again. I mean, you're not wearing shorts currently right? So why have such an adverse reaction, kiddo?

Ah because you want the RIGHT to wear them in the future if your situation changes.

most people ha never seen this memorial....but the minute it became a church vs state issue, people became outraged.

It's absolutely STUPID for the government to complain or hear complaint concerning religious symbols on their land that they approved of previously.

What are we going to do, dig up Arlington National Cemetery next? Do we remove chaplains from the military? Do those chaplains have to remove their religious symbols from their uniforms? Where do we draw the line?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." T. Jefferson

My Creator makes it clear I can worship him and pray to him, in school or otherwise. Why is the government taking that unalienable Right away from me?

It makes my happy to have headstones in the shapes of crosses and the Star of David, among other things.

Do I have the liberty to do these things, still?

 

[afterhours]

That's like your mother telling you in December that you can't wear shorts again. I mean, you're not wearing shorts currently right? So why have such an adverse reaction, kiddo?

Ah because you want the RIGHT to wear them in the future if your situation changes.



It's absolutely STUPID for the government to complain or hear complaint concerning religious symbols on their land that they approved of previously.

What are we going to do, dig up Arlington National Cemetery next? Do we remove chaplains from the military? Do those chaplains have to remove their religious symbols from their uniforms? Where do we draw the line?




My Creator makes it clear I can worship him and pray to him, in school or otherwise. Why is the government taking that unalienable Right away from me?

It makes my happy to have headstones in the shapes of crosses and the Star of David, among other things.

Do I have the liberty to do these things, still?

here we go with the riidiculous statement, that proves proves a point that really has nothing to do with the specific discussion...typical.

lets address these things one at a time:

to use your analogy, your mother is not telling you, that you cannot wear shorts ever.....your mom (gov.) is telling you not to wear shorts (prayer in school ) to a wedding(school)....it does not mean you can never wear shorts, it means that you cannot wear shorts at a specific time/place.....

the situation will never change, separation of church and state is part of the constitution. as long as the Constitution stands there will be a separation of church and state.

the Gov. changes its mind about lots of things. things that at one time were considered ok and acceptable....times change, the beautiful part of this country is that it can change, right previous wrongs and correct mistakes of previous generations....slavery, was once legal and now it is not. change is good.

dig up arlington? yeah, that makes sense....last time i checked the "GOV." was not forcing anyone to be buried there and they sure weren't forcing them to be buried under a cross. typical statement used to evoke emotion, without having any real value in the discussion. the cross we are talking about does not mark a grave, in fact the people it is memoralizing did not ask for it.

Chaplins in the military perform specific duties, for the individual soldier. because as has been stated many times....we are a nation of religious people. Chaplins are to comfort those serving, not to further a national agenda.

your inalienable right to pray has not been taken away, you as a person can pray anywhere you would like. the Constitution does prohibit the ways in which the Gov. can support religous groups and activities....especially at state run facilities and institutions.

funny thing is....the people screaming about how wrong it would be to take the cross down, are usually the same that freak out when symbols of other religions are displayed.

 

[HT_USMC]

Afterhours, I appreciate your passion man. Let's not let this turn into name calling and belittling of one another.

to use your analogy, your mother is not telling you, that you cannot wear shorts ever.....your mom (gov.) is telling you not to wear shorts (prayer in school ) to a wedding(school)....it does not mean you can never wear shorts, it means that you cannot wear shorts at a specific time/place.....

...

your inalienable right to pray has not been taken away, you as a person can pray anywhere you would like.

So can I or can't I pray in school? Sounds like something has been taken away.

By the way, your response here is called redefining (in an effort to make it sound ridiculous). The analogy would be more appropriate if we said she was saying no shorts to the pool ever again because Sally-Sue doesn't like you in shorts, even though I've been able to enjoy that right up until now. Which raises the same concern. Why? Can I rebuttal? If I let her proceed without speaking up, will I ever get that right back? Why does Sally-Sue's voice have more influence than my own? Was I really hurting anyone? Etc etc.

the Constitution does prohibit the ways in which the Gov. can support religous groups and activities....especially at state run facilities and institutions.

I don't think any religious group is asking for support from the government but rather for the government to allow them to be religious per the constitution. I think the ability to pray in school, for example, is a right and does not need the support or endorsement of the government. It's a right.

the Gov. changes its mind about lots of things. things that at one time were considered ok and acceptable....times change, the beautiful part of this country is that it can change, right previous wrongs and correct mistakes of previous generations....slavery, was once legal and now it is not. change is good.

In certain situations and past examples, change is good. I agree. However, change is not always good. If it were, then, for example, the internment of Japanese and Japanese-Americans in the U.S. during WWII would have been a good thing, as it was a change for them. Rather in hindsight we see that it was not the right thing to do. More importantly, they knew at that moment it was not a change for the better. Change is not always good.

I would argue that the taking away of the rights of citizens that they once had the liberty to enjoy is almost without exception a very bad thing.

dig up arlington? yeah, that makes sense....last time i checked the "GOV." was not forcing anyone to be buried there and they sure weren't forcing them to be buried under a cross. typical statement used to evoke emotion, without having any real value in the discussion. the cross we are talking about does not mark a grave, in fact the people it is memoralizing did not ask for it.

Actually, emotion or not, it's full of religious symbols residing on government soil - which was one of, if not the most pressing of, the arguments concerning this cross. The point here is that if we allow for these things to go through on the basis of "law" then it sets a precedence. That precedence then promotes decisions in other similar cases and before you know it, we've lost that right across the board. Which translates into the "modification" of Arlington's symbols to conform with the new laws. That would be a tragedy on a national scale.

Chaplins in the military perform specific duties, for the individual soldier. because as has been stated many times....we are a nation of religious people. Chaplins are to comfort those serving, not to further a national agenda.

So, what you're saying is that in certain circumstances it's okay for the separation of Church and State to be overlooked, but only by the government? Aren't there churches near all military bases that the service members could become involved in?

Why does the government continue to employ these people of the cloth?

...we are a nation of religious people.

I couldn't have said it better myself. So why all the hubbub over prayer (in schools) and religious symbols? Seriously.

funny thing is....the people screaming about how wrong it would be to take the cross down, are usually the same that freak out when symbols of other religions are displayed.

This may or may not be true but I can only speak for myself. If one prays to Jesus, Buddha, Allah, or even Satan, among others, one should have that right 24/7/365 regardless of school hours or otherwise. The government has no right to tell us where and when we can pray, according to the Constitution.

 

[afterhours]

Afterhours, I appreciate your passion man. Let's not let this turn into name calling and belittling of one another.



So can I or can't I pray in school? Sounds like something has been taken away.

By the way, your response here is called redefining (in an effort to make it sound ridiculous). The analogy would be more appropriate if we said she was saying no shorts to the pool ever again because Sally-Sue doesn't like you in shorts, even though I've been able to enjoy that right up until now. Which raises the same concern. Why? Can I rebuttal? If I let her proceed without speaking up, will I ever get that right back? Why does Sally-Sue's voice have more influence than my own? Was I really hurting anyone? Etc etc.



I don't think any religious group is asking for support from the government but rather for the government to allow them to be religious per the constitution. I think the ability to pray in school, for example, is a right and does not need the support or endorsement of the government. It's a right.



In certain situations and past examples, change is good. I agree. However, change is not always good. If it were, then, for example, the internment of Japanese and Japanese-Americans in the U.S. during WWII would have been a good thing, as it was a change for them. Rather in hindsight we see that it was not the right thing to do. More importantly, they knew at that moment it was not a change for the better. Change is not always good.

I would argue that the taking away of the rights of citizens that they once had the liberty to enjoy is almost without exception a very bad thing.


Actually, emotion or not, it's full of religious symbols residing on government soil - which was one of, if not the most pressing of, the arguments concerning this cross. The point here is that if we allow for these things to go through on the basis of "law" then it sets a precedence. That precedence then promotes decisions in other similar cases and before you know it, we've lost that right across the board. Which translates into the "modification" of Arlington's symbols to conform with the new laws. That would be a tragedy on a national scale.


So, what you're saying is that in certain circumstances it's okay for the separation of Church and State to be overlooked, but only by the government? Aren't there churches near all military bases that the service members could become involved in?

Why does the government continue to employ these people of the cloth?

I couldn't have said it better myself. So why all the hubbub over prayer (in schools) and religious symbols? Seriously.



This may or may not be true but I can only speak for myself. If one prays to Jesus, Buddha, Allah, or even Satan, among others, one should have that right 24/7/365 regardless of school hours or otherwise. The government has no right to tell us where and when we can pray, according to the Constitution.

i appreciate the discussion, if i have siad anything insulting i appologize. it was not meant that way.....

as for praying in school, yes you can.....as an individual. you as an individual can even start a catholic,muslim...prayer club,where you as individuals can meet,pray and talk about things....just like a chess club, young republicans club or latin club...etc. these are all things done on your time

the school however cannot have "prayer time" or have have teachers lead prayers...if a teacher wanted to join your prayer club he would have to do so as john smith, not Mr. Smith 4th grade teacher....

so is prayer being taken away from you, not today....but it was taken from you from you a couple hundred years ago when the US Constitution was written. so to use your analogy, whether Sally Sue like them or not,you never had the right to wear shorts.

the Gov. is not telling anyone not to be religious, its saying that they cannot support any one religion or allow monuments and memorials on Gov. land....the same Constitution that guarantees the gov. cannot infringe on your freedom to worship also limits the Gov. from supporting it as well....

yes i would agree that taking away rights of citizens is bad. where we dis-agree is that you believe that you have always had the right to pray in school, or perhap in this case to display a cross on Gov. land....while i feel that right does not exhist and that the separation of church and state prohibits this.

we also agree that the removal of any religious symbols commemorating the fallen at Arlington, or any cemetary would be a crime. I do however think that the two issue are so different in nature that there is little danger of a legal precedent being set. a cemetary and a national park just too different.

military chaplins are used to serve the individuals, they are trained in more than one denomination and are supposed to serve all to the best of thier ability.....so the military is not choosing one religion over the other, or endorsing any specific religion.....in accordance with the US Constitution.