Justices to decide if vets can be honored with cross

Question, why couldn't we solve this problem with private property rights.

Simply sell the patches of dirt to the highest bidder and they can do with it as they please. This, to me, seems to be the safest route to escape folks trying to bastardize the First Amendment.

Anyway, this article is speaking about the cross in the Mojave National Park if you wanted to look it up to read the whole thing.

I think they should just leave it up to the families of the veterans. That's the simplest way to handle this situation.

reply to post by fraterormus

I agree with you completely on this, fraterormus. I guess a lot of people responding to this thread are OK with majority rule in matters regarding religion...the tyranny of that in this case. That sounds oddly unAmerican to me.

A flag or an eagle or some other national symbol as you have suggested would be more appropriate so as to not offend the 20% non-Christians...and I would be so bold to suggest that this is not a trivial issue as the burial and honoring of one's family is hardly trivial. Veterans signed up to serve their country, not a particular religious sect. Flame away - I'm a Christian and come from a military family.

Could the OP supply included a link or name a source from which this flaming little snippet came?

The US Flag appeared a while ago and now this?

There's a bit too many intolerant people/groups out there so the only way to combat these fools is to use this before it gets out of hand:

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I'm offended by the ACLU. Do you suppose they would represent me in a case to get rid of themselves? Just a thought.

Equal rights. They're offended by the offending party so the offending party should be offended by the offended.

Here is a link

washingtontimes.com...#

Don't you guys have 'In God we Trust' on your money? how many athiest and Buddhist are offened by those words on something used and seen every day.
This is a memorial cross that has been there since 1934 why suddenly is it and others offensive.

Originally posted by dizzylizzy Don't you guys have 'In God we Trust' on your money? how many athiest and Buddhist are offened by those words on something used and seen every day.

Yes, many people do take offense at the Confederate slogan "In God We Trust" being added to the United States Currency in 1956 to replace "E Pluribus Unum" that had been in it's place since 1782. And now that you mention it, I'll be sure to write Congress about it right away.

At least "God" only offends a little more than 20% of the population, as the other almost 80% worship a God of some sort. God isn't the sole property of Christians. So mainly Atheists and Wiccans and some of the Eastern Religions would take offense at a non-denominational reference. All of the other World Religions would be fine with "God" even if they call him Thor or Brahman, or Yehovah, or Shang-ti, Cthulu, or Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Still that doesn't make it right to offend more than 1/5th of our brothers and sisters.

Originally posted by dizzylizzy This is a memorial cross that has been there since 1934 why suddenly is it and others offensive.

Doesn't your Bible teach you "To everything there is a season,
a time for every purpose under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 3:1.

Our forefathers came here to escape religious persecution. The settlers at Roanoke were escaping Christian persecution. The settlers at Plymouth Rock were escaping persecution from the Church of England. Many early settlers were escaping persecution from the tyranny of the Catholic Church. My ancestor Joseph Putnam still had to face religious persecution at the hands of Christians even here, during the Salem Witch Trials. Our Founding Fathers learned from the mistakes of the past and attempted to put an end to religious persecution when they drafted the basic tenets of our Nation. Even though this Nation was founded on principles that would protect the religious right of each person from persecution by all other religions, religious persecution by the Christians still persisted, even into the late 1960's.

Thanks to the Beatles exploring Eastern Religions, and the Flower Children of the late 1960's and early 1970's, people came to grow more tolerant of other religions. Where once it was a social stigma to profess a faith other than Christianity in America, it was finally tolerated (just as it was supposed to be according to our Constitution).

It took a generation or two to die off before the majority of those that were left truly understood and valued Religious Freedom for all...not just a select few Protestant sects of Christianity.

If anyone suggested in the 1950s that the Christian Cross was offensive to other religions, they would have had a Cross burned on their front lawn by cowardly men wearing white robes and pointy hats. Today, if the cowardly men wearing white robes and pointy hats show up on your doorstep, the Sheriff will come to run them out of town, even if the Sheriff is a Muslim and you happen to be Jewish.

A lot has changed in the 70 years since that Christian Cross was erected as a monument to veterans in that National Park. We now recognize African Americans and Women as equals, rather than regarding them as genetically inferior and sub-human property as many once did. We also now recognize that those who have made sacrifices in serving this Nation weren't necessarily Christian.

As time progresses, we learn and grow, and hopefully become a little wiser. We cannot change the wrongs of the past, but we can show that we have learned from them. It was wrong of our grandfathers to erect a Christian Monument to commemorate only some of the veterans who gave of their lives. The least we can do is place something that commemorates all of those veterans, regardless of their Race, Color, Creed, or Religious Denomination (or lack thereof).

And, if there are other monuments to the many that wrongfully represent the whole, then those can be dealt with too, in due time.

reply to post by dizzylizzy

Thanks for the link, dizzylizzy as I think it's important to know who funded this memorial. In 1934, as has now been pointed out it was funded by a small group of veterans on their own dime so at least it wasn't paid for by the local or federal government.

This complaint may seem trivial because of its small scale but I don't think these issues in general are trivial...separation of church and state is no small matter and certainly not a new thing for people to take issue with this. Why is the OP using the word "sissies" to describe those who might take issue with this? ummmmmm. Yeah whatever.

A huge percentage of people who came to the USA did so because of religious persecution or if you will the tyranny of the majority. Our government is unique in that it tries to protect the rights of minorities. Demanding they deliver on that promise is now for sissies? Personally, a seven foot high cross I would not bother with this but that's what the ACLU does - they do bother with small matters that are important to maintaining the integrity and adherence of the law of the land.

Many still taking issue that "...one nation under God..." was added to our pledge of allegiance in the 50's. It's not the sort of issue I'd prioritize for the ACLU but it's good to be watchful.

Tentickles, people, some of them, like controversy.

I practice freedom of/from religion, and am very tolerant of some's beliefs. However, I am very prejudiced against sissies, and closed-mindedness. It's almost my mission to "smite" a non-believer of my own sorts.

These are the type that will 'flip mode' when faced with mortal danger, and pray aloud if nearby people could help. See it all the time.

Many local church leaders almost seem as if they want me dead for my beliefs/very being. Do I care, no.
The ACLU has a weakness, they like to argue. And, challenge the US Constitution. They're weak, pitiful fools who like to whoholler.
Their weakness is paper based literature. If you take an interest, fire up your printer and do an Inet search for opponents of the ACLU and print away. Distribute directly in front of them. But, watch out as they may try to smack at your face and when you raise in defense, shout Police!Police! I've seen it...

... Hey! Let's try something: Instead of the cross being a religiously-based symbol, let's try making it a symbol of love and respect!!! Oh wait... Then the Satanists would complain right?

Viewed from a person who doesn't believe in religions, this is completely ridiculous...

-Jimmy-

I can understand what the group is trying to do because those that are trying to say that the cross does not matter I bet it would be all over the news next year if they decided to use the Jewish Star of David instead of a cross. Are we then going to say that it is no big deal even though you are a Christian or of some other group. It does matter and one group should not be shown favoritism over any other group.

reply to post by Tentickles



This is just another ridiculous claim to try and make everything please everyone.

That has shown in the past and the present to be an outrageous attempt that cannot be fulfilled. I myself am getting overly frustrated with all the utterly disgusting, unnecessary bickering going on in this world.

Slap in the face to you, and you, and of course, you.

reply to post by fraterormus



Smartest thing anyone on this thread has said all day. The constitution says we have a clear separation of church and state. So unless there is some kind of propaganda going around that all of our wars are religious in nature and are involvement is initiated not by the US government but by a church somehow, I just don't understand why we need to place anything over the graves other than a nice-sized stone marking the persons final resting place. I like the Bald Eagle idea or perhaps something else that's Patriotic in nature, but religious symbols have no place on or incorporated in any way with American War Memorials. Last time I checked, we fight only for Liberty, Justice, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We are not Martyrs, so no need to glorify anyones religious standing in a War Memorial, period!

The piggy bank was insulting so banks in Holland stopped giving them out...
A girl sued a HoReCa (hotel-restaurant-cafe) school in Holland because they refused her application on the basis that she would not shake hands with people, which in Holland is the number 1 way of politely greeting people and a sign of hospitality. It was a Horeca school which is all about hospitality, but they lost the case and had to accept her...
Dentist in England refuses to treat women who won't cover their hair...
The Swine Flu was insulting so the WHO was pressed to change it's name...

Now a memorial is insulting?

I'm totally with you Tentickles that all these cases are extremely frustrating...
I often wonder if we're being 'frustrated' into mental deterioration.

In my opinion they need a total hardball at the ACLU front office, so that when these kinds of moaners come to cry foul over such petty issues he/she goes:

"Awwwww, you're right. This is unacceptable and we'll start immediate....
...GET THE *$@& OUT OF HERE!!!!!!!!...."

Who really cares what the ACLU says about this? Who cares what anyone here cares about this?


This isn't a memorial for the Muslim guy walking down the road. This isn't for a Jewish woman attending the memorial.This is a Memorial for Veterans. If they don't like it then let them be the ones to complain about it.

Until that happens then everyone else needs to keep their noses out of it.

I wonder if we could have 2 Americas, one for decent, right thinking decent folk, and one for those with diseased ACLU brains.

Oh wait, I was forgetting we already have California.

In case of new memorials I definitely oppose using white crosses regardless of the religious or atheist belief system subscribed to by those to be remembered.
Something generic or patriotic would be a much better choice these days, but I don't think we should go around the country and paint our newly found political correctness over the mistakes from the past.

Consider this... when the soldiers died for their country, they did so knowing full well that the standard memorial we use for our fallen is a cross. And yet, they enlisted and died for us anyways, without making any sort of request that a cross not be used.

I say leave the memorial the way it is. Future generations should just ask not to be memorialized with a cross, if they so choose.

reply to post by Tentickles


When I was in the military it was required that your religious preference if any was included in your documentation. So it would be easy enough to find the appropriate marker to place on any service member's grave.

I don't get what the fuss is about. Just place the appropriate marker on the person's grave. If they are a Christian, a cross is sufficient. Being that I am a Christian, that is the only marker I know about that would be appropriate. I do not know the symbolism for the other religious groups other than perhaps a goat's head for a satanist.

[edit on 5/29/2009 by DarrylGalasso]

reply to post by fraterormus


Here's the thing. No one forces these veterans to be buried under a cross, it is entirely up to the veteran, as stated in their will, and the family. And for those vets who aren't Christian? They have the option of being buried under their own religious symbol (i.e. the Star of David, or the Muslim Crescent Moon). They Army right now acknowledges five major religions/denominations (Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism) , simply because they are the majority in the military, and the world as a whole. However, other faith systems are indeed provided for! For example, many soldiers practice Wicca. Are these soldiers left out in the cold without a means of practicing their faith? Hell no! As a Chaplain Assistant, part of my training was to provide for ALL FAITH GROUPS, not just the one I ascribe to. Part of that training was learning how to provide appropriate religious support to soldiers practicing religions such as Wicca. And indeed, while I was in school, the first Wiccan chaplain graduated and went to her first duty station to provide for her soldiers.

My point is this, all civilians see is what they want to see; the majority have no idea what is really going on inside the military. The military uses a cross as a memorial marker, not due to some overbearing religious zealousness, but rather because it is TRADITION. If you all weren't aware, the military is pretty big on tradition. There is no Christian memorial service if the soldier wasn't Christian, the marker has no other indication that it is a Christian symbol besides the fact that it is a cross. And if the faith of the soldier was unknown, a simple memorial service is done, without any mention of any one particular faith group. And really, if we want to get right down to it, the only reason we relate a cross to Christianity is because of history. Two thousand years ago, crosses were seen as a sign of death and torture (see Roman crucifixions). If it was truly to be a Christian symbol, there would be some other mentioning of Christ, or anything else that had to do with Christianity.

All you people who are offended by the fact that it is a cross find it to be a meaningless symbol anyway. So instead of attempting to force what has resulted from your lack of understanding of the power that this symbol has on many people, on everyone else, try to use your time in a more valuable fashion; like by doing some research before you bash the values of others.

Edit: Also, regardless of what I've said above, I am indeed a supporter of freedom of/religion, and the ability for each individual to choose his or her own way of life, as well as the importance of the separation of Church and State. However... all the freedom lovers out there need to be careful that this doesn't turn into just an anti-Christian party. Yes, Christians are the majority, so Christian symbolism and whatnot is the most prolific. However, what we desire is equality and fairness, not the destruction of any one particular faith group, regardless of their past transgressions.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by dwiggen]

Here in San Diego, a private group built a war memorial, on city property, no grave sites, that consists of a 60 ft high cross on city property.

ACLU sued for years to have it torn down until it was transfered to the US Government two years ago to protect it, since it has already been ruled that religious symbols at war memorials are protected.

Tell the ACLU, the Anti-Christian Liberal Uglies to stick to real government abuses.