September 29, 2009
-
Separation Between Church and State
A 6 1/2 foot cross was made in order to honor those who died in World War I. Veterans first put the cross up in 1934.
The problem is that the cross is on Federal property. There are some that are concerned that the cross represents an endorsement of Christianity by the government. Here is the link: Link
Do you think a cross on federal property violates the separation between church and state?
Comments (164)
Arlington National Cemetery is going to be in some trouble.
Not really.
To me, there is no separation of church and state. People carry their beliefs everywhere they go. Everything one says has something to do with their own personal philosophy. We’re not a theocracy, but we’re not atheistic either.
The beautiful philosophies of a teenager. Gotta love it.
That’s a tricky question. I think it does, yes.
Well, this argument could go anywhere. Pledge of Allegiance expressly promotes an American endorsement of Christianity.
No, not at all. It’s a memorial to honor victims of WW1. It goes along with all of the religious symbols in place in Washington DC. No one really thinks about the Washington Monument being nothing more than a giant Obelisk. I see nothing wrong with the cross.
leave the cross where its at it isn’t bothering anyone and if it does bother you don’t look at it.
No. Everyone has their own beliefs and that dosent entitle them to a hunk of land.
God bless America.
I don’t necessarily think it’s promoting religion. What *does* promote religion is swearing politicians in on the Bible regardless of their religious affiliation. What *does* promote religion is FORCING non-believing students to say the Pledge of Allegiance (I as a teacher in Texas WILL NOT RECITE THE PLEDGE due to this). What *does* promote religion is the Ten Commandments in a courtroom.
A memorial doesn’t really promote religion. Christian indoctrination (which all three examples I gave are this) IS promoting religion, and as such a violation thereof. I guess I won’t be serving as a witness in court or as a politician anytime soon as I won’t swear on a book I don’t believe in.
So…now we should also make a law forbidding government officials from wearing crosses? People are WAY too sensitive about the separation. It’s really very frustrating. The amendment simply says that Congress cannot pass a law making a government supported/mandatory church.
I’m not sure if it violates separation of church and state or not, but I do think that if a legitimate monument/memorial/figure was being requested to be placed in honor of WW1 that happened to be representative of religion other than Christianity that it should be placed, or the cross should be removed if it cannot be placed.
I would like to think that the separation of church and state would mean that the government or anything involving government should have nothing to do with religion. I think ‘God’ should be taken out of the pledge of allegiance.
I really don’t see the point in saying the Pledge of Allegiance, either.
I know this is off-topic, but WHY are we pledging allegiance to our country. Why do students at schools across the country saying this pledge everyday???
We do not even know what this means nowadays, do we?
Allegiance-–noun
<table class=”luna-Ent”> <tbody><tr> <td class=”dnindex” width=”35″>1. <td>the loyalty of a citizen to his or her government or of a subject to his or her sovereign. <table class=”luna-Ent”><tbody><tr><td class=”dnindex” width=”35″>2. <td>loyalty or devotion to some person, group, cause, or the like.
What do you think it means to be loyal to your government???
Leave it for historical importance.
I totally agree with @razzle_dazzle_lip_gloss! You took the words right out of my mouth! Yay for philosophic teens!
The cross was chosen by the veterans of the war to honor their dead. It was their choice, and it should be their right to honor the people that they knew the best in the best way that they know how. If a cross symbolizes their love and their graditude to their fallen comrades, then people need to take the bee out of their bonnet and just deal with it. If you don’t believe in the cross, then fine. It’s just a vertical beam crossing a horizontal beam, kind of like a plus sign or the frame of a kite. If need be, think of it that way. Let the people who believe in the cross add the meaning to it themselves, and leave well enough alone.
@neverreallyover - Here, in my opinion, are some ideals they’re pledging their “loyalty” too: racism, sexism, homophobia, intolerance. Just my opinion.
I think it absolutely violates Church and State Separation. This is further highlighted by the fact that a group of Buddhists also wanted to advertise on the government land with a Buddhist Shrine and were denied a permit. The government is playing favorites of one religion over the other and endorsing X-tianity as the Bestest. A violation.
Does anyone even have a clue what ‘separation of church and state’ is anymore? Does anyone know what the Constitution says?
I have free copies if you want or need one. Seriously.
See the controversy over Mt Soledad.
Its been there since 1934 and all of a sudden it’s offending someone? Pardon me while I am not surprised.
Just want to add….I am open to comprise. I will be ok if we leave the cross based on historical reasons….if Christians back the hell off with erecting any new religious symbols on government land so many push for. If no compromise, Cross has to go.
A random cross in the wilderness won’t influence anyone one way or another. We aren’t blind sheep. But on the other hand weren’t some of the WWI soldiers Jewish? If I were a Jew I wouldn’t want a cross to represent me.
On the third hand, do we have to correct every dang expression of previous generations? Sheesh, there are bigger issues to worry about.
If it does, they are going to have to violate a lot of graves in Arlington… they might also consider tearing down all out national monuments which all have Bible verses enscribed on them… as does the Capitol Building, The White House too I believe. Of course then you’de be infringing on the religios rights of those who would want crosses on thier graves as well as the people whose monuments you were bulldozing… Athiests can be so religiously uptight sometimes.
That said, no. It very clearly does not violate the seperation of church and state.
Yes, it absolutely does.
The cross is unambigiously Christian. There is no contravening historical motivation or artistic significance to the cross itself (as opposed to, say, something like the Sistine Chapel).
@PetalsxPeril - Wow. I was going to say that the symbol of the cross really doesn’t mean much except to believers, but you stole the words out of my mouth, too. We’ll get along juuust fine.
It has absolutely nothing to do with any religion. Graves used to be marked by a cross with the name and date regardless of what religion one followed. Considering that this memorial has been in place for 75 years I think it deserves to stay. The ACLU will always be looking for ways to cause problems.
Well… I could make the argument that there are crosses all over government cemeteries too. I’d say my crazy liberal friends are just being a little too touchy right now.
@walden_thoreau - Well, this argument could go anywhere. Pledge of Allegiance expressly promotes an American endorsement of Christianity.
It does. But the Supreme Court has yet to hear the case.
It’s not the cross monument that bothers me, it’s the fact that a pentagram or a star&moon would NEVER be allowed as a monument for all soldiers.
@CelestialTeapot - Crosses have also been a symbol for a grave, as many people were buried under crosses with the name and date regardless of their religion for centuries.
it’s been there for a while, im not gonna shit bricks over getting rid of it. there are more important things to talk about.
i think in this particular case they should just let it slide.
No, as long as it doesn’t screw up the environment. The separation of church and state is not there to keep the church out of the government. It’s there to keep the government out of the church. Ministers, pastors, priests and Rabbis should be able to say what they want in their own church. They should be able to endorse a political candidate, let that be said without taxes for it. Politicians should be able to persuade in churches if invited. Christians should be able to pray and worship wherever we want to. We ought to be able to use school property for a group. We should be allowed to execise our first amandment rights to persuade where and when we want. Of course we would have to keep the laws of the land. If a Christian calls in the middle of the night to preach just say “Shove it”, but we should have the right. If it’s causing harm, well that’s different. Now, we are able to do some of these things, maybe all of them, I don’t keep up with it all, but we don’t want to lose any of our rights. You should have the right to take the sign down but not from my property. Since the national parks are my property then you do not have the right to remove my sign or cross. Just put some other kind of sign in front of it.
@razzle_dazzle_lip_gloss - heck yes! new generation unite!
But seriously…. me putting up a cross somewhere as a memorial is not going to make someone ‘cross over’ to Christianity, so why freak out about it? If the government was passing out religious pamphlets, or forcing children to pray or something like that I would completely understand. But must we tear down every little sign of Christianity just to help atheists get the sticks out of their rear ends?
I’m perfectly fine with @tendollar4ways deal with not erecting any new religious symbols on government land. That’s okay with me. Just let us keep the existing memorials (which amazingly no one had problems with for 75 years), Christmas and Easter. Sound fair? ^.^
@AibellFaeire is right on, as well. The symbol can have whatever meaning you want it to have.. so why mess with it?
@PetalsxPeril - Totally.
Why don’t we just get rid of the phrase “In God we Trust” from all of our money while we’re at it?
@AibellFaeire -
1. Irrelevent. What matters is how the cross may be construed in the present.
2. Different. Cementary crosses are personal, and reflect the freedom of religions of those buried. The cross momument is a general representation– not all who served in WWI were Christian. Not all who view it are Christian.
ha. we just got done talking about the separation of church and state in government… yeah, it does. federal offices can’t have religious things on their property.
@CelestialTeapot - ”What matters now is how the cross may be construed in the present”
Then construe it in whatever way you will. No one is forcing you to see the cross as a sign of salvation. See it as a plus sign, or a grave marker, or the symbol of a religion you don’t agree with. It’s not attacking you. It’s not handing you a pamphlet or forcing you to pray. It’s harmless, and it meant something to the veterans who put it up. It’s been fine for 75 years… why should they make concessions for something that has been established for that long of a time over something this unbelieveably petty? The war meant something deep to them, and this is their sign of respect. To me, it would be extremely disrepectful to destroy that for them, and a heinous thing to do to people who risked their lives for our country.
No. And people need to stop nit picking.
@PetalsxPeril - No one is forcing you to see the cross as a sign of salvation.
1. The cross is generally taken as a Christian symbol. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross
(a) The American cultural context (your “Christian nation”), makes it clearly a “Christian cross.”
(b) That a Muslim group, a Jewish group, and the ACLU collectively brought this issue to court demonstrates that it’s not only *I* who see a Christian cross.
2. Even granting your argument of ambiguity, that a significant portion of those viewing it may construe the symbol religiously is sufficent for violation of est. of religion.
See it as a plus sign, or a grave marker, or the symbol of a religion you don’t agree with.
It’s not a fucking grave marker. There’s no fucking grave.
I don’t think it does. The cross seems to have a dual meaning in this country. When I see a cross on a grave or a memorial I don’t immediately think of Jesus dying on the cross. Look at our national cemetaries. The crosses found in those are a picture of those who have given their lives for this country. Again, not a picture of Jesus. I understand that the cross has been adopted from Christianity, but it has taken on an additional meaning.
Also, it would make sense if our country were to adopt a symbol from any religion that it be from Christianity, esp. from that time period when Christianity played a larger role in the lives of Americans. So in many ways, even if there were intended religious implications, it still tells the story of American history for future generations so it remains important. If we were to put crosses on the graves of all of the soldiers who died in Iraq, I would say it would be crossing a line since our nation is clearly much more diverse today religiously.
Yes in my opinion it is.
If there was equality in it there would be no problem, but you don’t see any stars of David, or pentacles, or any symbol of the other religions.It’s not fair. It also condones many Catholics in thinking that America is a Christian nation, which it is NOT.Anything, in my opinion that strengthens Catholics’ beliefs in their own dominance is a terrible thing.
@abilene_piper_lg - Several Senators have sworn in without a Bible, and one with a Koran.
Many Christians are equally concerned about the Pledge of Allegiance as a form of indoctrination.
@CelestialTeapot - It’s a memorial for those who died in WWI. It serves as a memoriam for those who have given up their lives. Many of them have graves. Some of them do not. Memorials can be seen as stand in graves for those who deserve to be honored in their rest, but don’t get to be.
“That a Muslim group, a Jewish group, and the ACLU collectively brought this issue to court demonstrates that it’s not only *I* who see a Christian cross”
The you that I put in my argument is a collective You. People need to get over themselves with this whole political correctness thing. Let’s focus on something actually important, like world hunger or domestic violence or corruption in all of the factions of religion, instead of nitpicking over who put who’s religious symbol where. The cross means something to me, it doesn’t to you (the collective you), much like a Chrisitan doesn’t see much in the Star of David or a symbol of a moon with a star in it, or a pentagram other than it’s some other religion’s symbol. If it makes you all happy, go ahead and put up your own symbols all over the place. Just stop busting your lids trying to take down something that means alot to the people who actually did something worthy of a memorial, and get over yourselves (again, a collective you).
As for the rest of the argument, I heavily agree with @MichaelCavaness. You put it down wonderfully.
@CelestialTeapot - If you read the article, Buddhist wanted to advertise their religion too and were denied. + I don’t really know how prescedent figures into this legally. If it does, this will be a green light to put a Cross up on ever elementary School.
@samsterrx - As a Catholic, I disagree. We know we are heavily outnumbered by Protestants in this nation. We may heavily dominate Europe, but we would rarely claim to be a ‘Catholic nation’. Christian nation, perhaps. Catholic, no.
And you don’t see those other symbols because a cross is a universal symbol for respect for the dead. Yes, it may be a tad unfair but this memorial was put up more than several decades ago and basing it’s construction upon our cultural expectations now is unfair to the memories of those who gave their lives, and those who were left behind as veterans to oversee the memorial’s original construction.
@MichaelCavaness - Dude…that is a tough sell. Crosses are most definately Christian Symbols. There are stars of david on graves too + the government denied Buddhists the right to erect there dome or whatever they wanted to erect.
@tendollar4ways - But the Buddhists were advertising their religion with a temple. The veterans didn’t build a church on federal property. They simply put up a memorial for men who gave their lives for the country. The cross they erected is a symbol of their memories and the hopes that the men went to a better place for their sacrifice. It’s not inviting people to come in and worship, its not educating people what the Christian faith is about, its not forcing them to pray and it’s not open for the public to add to or attend. There’s a major difference between a memorial and a temple.
@tendollar4ways - The Stars of David weren’t added or accepted until recently. For hundreds of years, only crosses marked graves in most European and American countries/states.
What about Arlington?
@PetalsxPeril - Not buying that for a second. The Cross is a Christian symbol. If you took time to read the article, they are having Christian services at the cross. The government should remain neutral on religion. Many Christians don’t see it that way and for some reason are so insecure in their faith they need the governments endorsement.
@PetalsxPeril - We recently gave black people the same civil rights as whites. Your point being?
@CelestialTeapot - 1. Not irrelevant. One could argue that this monument represents a mass grave for those lost.
2. Like I said, crosses were a universal way to depict a grave site, not necessarily a Christian way. If this monument was supposed to represent a grave or resting place symbolically, then there is nothing religious about it.
@DirtyAndShaken - Thank-you. Separation of Church and State means that the Church is not allowed to tell the state how to act, not to eliminate every nuance of religious expression.
to everyone else: I’m going to open a whole new can of worms here! The ‘cross’ as erected today is no more a Christian symbol than Santa Claus is!
Get over it.
@tendollar4ways - This isn’t about the government endorsing a religion. This is about paying tribute to martyrs of this country. If people choose to have services at a cross, then have them ban services at the cross. Honeslty, they should have the freedom to pray wherever they want- everyone should.
A symbol is meaningful only if it represents something actual. Planting a cross there only represents an endorsement of Christianity if it is in fact true that the government endorses one religion. That it doesn’t endorse religion should tell us not to interpret it as an endorsement. Case closed.
But that’s a weak argument. It doesn’t have to represent something actual… It could represent a desire, which is enough for secularists to be alarmed (rightfully, perhaps?). So yeah, maybe. But I think there are bigger fish to fry, bigger crosses to burn.
@PetalsxPeril - So you wouldn’t mind if a bunch of Satanists went out to this cross and had services or did so in the street in front of your house?
There are many ways to solve this problem. 1. we agreed on a compromise (however I find it hard to beleive that x-tians would go for this) or 2. Get a bunch of people together and buy some land near by and erect a 1000 foot cross. 3. Have a secular symbol erected in its place.
@nyclegodesi24 - The Buddhist were denied their symbol. This is favoritism. Slippery slope.
I think the line we must not cross is that of the government imposing a particular religion on us. I think that a memorial that one can freely either visit or not visit is not a case of the government imposing a religion on us. @abilene_piper_lg - The President may actually be sworn in on whichever book he chooses. The use of the bible is only a tradtion no a requirement. I agree about forcing students to say the pledge of allegience and about the 10 commandments in courtrooms.
@tendollar4ways -
1) the term x-tian is derrotagory, and I would ask that you refrain from using such slander if you want your arguments to have debating merit at all.
2) building a 1000 foot cross would be redundant and extremely unneccessary. I, as a Catholic/Christian would not endorse it- its materialism at a ridiculous height.
3) The secular symbol would not have been erected by the veterans, who this is about. This takes away their right to create a memorial to their loved ones, and is highly disrespectful. You seem to forget that this is a small thing made by a group of men who risked their lives, not religious fanatics of any kind.
and
4) Satanists can do whatever they want as long as they don’t break the law, though I personally think that would be defiling a memorial, and two my house is private property and thus cannot be traspassed on. I wouldn’t let strangers of ANY religion near it without a damn good reason. Federal property is public property. Huge difference.
Start arguing with credibility and respect, please. It might actually make me take you seriously.
and I agree with @tsh44
We’re supposedly a Christian nation, buuuuuut…
http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/UtahSFamicus.pdf Scroll to the conclusion in the case.
@yingforyouryang - very nice ^.^
Ah duh. How can anyone say otherwise?
Maybe, maybe not.
@tendollar4ways - hm, you’re right.
Putting up a cross is hardly “Establishing” any religion, and it certainly is NOT making ANY laws. Sheesh. People need to actually read the actual amendment.
If they’re gonna say that crap, then what about all the soldiers with their crosses in Arlington cemetary? That is government property. Honestly I haven’t heard something so rediculous in a long time.
I think this country has far bigger problems to concern ourselves with than some cross in the desert.
Well wouldn’t forcing the cross to come down be considered “establishing a law” relating to religion more than just allowing it?
@DirtyAndShaken - Really?
Maybe you can show me where in it is says “separation of church and state”
@bukeshow - I second that statement.
This is ridiculous.
@AibellFaeire - I like that..
@Tagging_Along - thanks atleast someone still has some sense
Absolutely not. No more than the dog turd on my lawn endorses the viewing of our mainstream media.
“Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.[1] The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.[2]“
No, the cross is the default way in which we honor our dead in this country. It isn’t making government any less secular and constitutes a freedom of religious exercise. Putting a monument to honor the dead on government land is not the installation of a religious institution. People need to get off it.
@tendollar4ways - Was their symbol the default way in which the dead are honored in this country as dictated by tradition? Do we put Buddhist statues carved from wood over the graves of unknown soldiers in cemeteries?
I also agree with the poster who pointed out that it has historical significance. I also don’t get why people would not want to pledge allegiance to their country whether there was the word “god” in it or not. Aren’t there any patriots left? How selfish. I guess it’s lucky that you have service men and women to do it since you don’t want to.
after reading the comments here, i’m leaning towards yes.
Ooohhh tricky question, controversial subject. Aka: Great post topic. :]
That cross was put there in commemoration. Plus, it was from a while ago: 1934, in honor of those who died. I think it’s fine. Now maybe if they had put up something like: *cross* Go with God *cross* I might rethink my comment but…no. I don’t see it as a big problem.
Let’s rip all the crosses and angels out of all the public graveyards so we can be fair.
Actually, I find it amusing that a group of people who claim it has no real meaning are so afraid of it that they must take it down.
@AllthePerfect_Words - It’s not in the Constitution. That was my point.
Well if the purpose was to honor those who died in the war, then it shouldn’t be a problem.
This doesn’t promote religion. It’s a memorial to people who lost their lives. I’m normally against church hanging out with state. One tends to influence the other into doing something crazy every now and then. No harm done here.
Symbolism is subjective. Unless the government expressly states that it is using the cross to promote religion, there is no problem with this on Federal property.
let’s just skip all this time-wasting crap and get right to the point. christianity is going to be outlawed eventually and all relics destroyed and the world is going to be destroyed by fire. life’s a female dog and then you die.
Here we go again. Has anyone here ever been to Washington DC? To see the Federal Buildings? To see Arlington Cemetery? To the Navy Band Christmas Concert? To the opening of Congress with a prayer everyday? Let a memorial be what it is.
wow, gotta say–anyone who thinks that’s violating the ‘separation of church and state’ and actually thinks it ought to be removed is, to be blunt, a whiny fag with absolutely no life or important things to worry about.
@greenbird321 - <—- classical Ad Hominem attack
It would be nice if you had something substnative to add. That is, beyond lame-ass short-sighted commentary.
@Lithium98 - This doesn’t promote religion. It’s a memorial to people who lost their lives.
Being of a *religious* quality and being a *memorial* aren’t muturally exclusive!
A cross is religious. Prominent public display of a cross is government sponsored religious propping of religion.
@mtngirlsouth - Actually, I find it amusing that a group of people who claim it has no real meaning are so afraid of it that they must take it down.
Your amusment stinks of confused muddlement. The metaphysical or spiritual significance of a display is irrelevent in determining its religious quality. A cross is meaningful enough to symbolicly represent Christianity, and this understanding isn’t conditional on being Christian.
@joyouswind - Let’s rip all the crosses and angels out of all the public graveyards so we can be fair.
A public memorial is different in nature from cementaries. In evaluation of the establishment clause, context matters..
@soul_survivor - I also don’t get why people would not want to pledge allegiance to their country whether there was the word “god” in it or not. Aren’t there any patriots left? How selfish.
Just as you would not pledge allegience to almighty Brahma, there are those here who don’t observe an Abrahamic religion.
Hmmm, but memorials are touchy. Yeah, it is a violation, technically. Unless it is for each individual soldier with each individual belief or representation of lack of belief then…yeah. @AibellFaeire - Those crosses are for each individual. If an Agnostic person was buried on federal land, it would be an injustice to place a cross on his/her grave. Difference.
Either way, let’s leave the memorials alone and focus on the pledge and the dollar bill, first. One step at a time.
@striemmy - No, the cross is the default way in which we honor our dead in this country.
The Iwo Jima WW II memorial doesn’t feature a cross. And nor does the Vietnam Memorial.
It isn’t making government any less secular and constitutes a freedom of religious exercise.
But not when that free exercise encroaches on the free exercise of others.
@CelestialTeapot - LOL I just had a rough workout; I’m not in the mood to go into detail. but, it’s obvious to anyone with a fully functional brain that there is no valid reason to raise a fuss about this cross and/or have it taken down.
@greenbird321 - Winy fag? No wonder America is going to the shits.
@weakerlink - Absolutely not. No more than the dog turd on my lawn endorses the viewing of our mainstream media.
You must mean the Supreme Court. The last time I’ve check, the media doesn’t hold a Constitutionally vested right to judicial review.
@striemmy - No, but we could do like the Vietnam Memorial (black wall… beautiful and awesome in every way). No religion is identified in that.
@misuriver - you have a problem with linguistics/semantics? that’s your problem. no wonder America is turning into a nation of knee-jerk reaction-sensitive whiners. *shakes head*
@CelestialTeapot - ROFL!
No because the government didn’t erect it.
@mtngirlsouth - Putting up a cross is hardly “Establishing” any religion, and it certainly is NOT making ANY laws. Sheesh. People need to actually read the actual amendment.
You just blew past the past hundred year’s worth of judicial precedence. Remember that school prayer case? Courthouse 10 commandments display?
@CelestialTeapot - That’s okay. I didn’t say it was the way in which we bury all of our dead. Merely that is the default way, which would make other practices deviation from the norm.
In what way is that an encroachment on the free exercise of others? Concisely, in what way is it stopping someone else?
@CelestialTeapot - Prominent public display of a cross is government sponsored religious propping of religion.
That’s a matter of opinion (unless you have a reference stating otherwise). I guess I should have been more specific in saying that I feel it doesn’t promote religion. Maybe I’m just numb to the blatant advertising that goes on in our society. I’d expect a promotion or advertisement to try and convince me to buy their product. There’s no “Got Jesus?” sign draped across the… umm… cross. I just don’t see how it promotes anything at all.
@misuriver - We could, however, there’s no reason not to do what they’re already doing. We could do any number of things.
@tsh44 - I think that a memorial that one can freely either visit or not visit is not a case of the government imposing a religion on us.
It was ruled in Engle v. Vitale that school prayer was unconstitutional even if the student may choose to excuse themselves.
@misuriver - I agree with basically your entire comment. There are much bigger things than a memorial when the intention is obviously commemoration and not attaching God to our government.
And you’re right, but you must take into account that sometimes makeshift crosses were just used to mark graves on places where there was no cemetery – like when people died in pioneer times on the wagon trails. It’s probably got its roots in Christianity (I don’t know where else it would come from) but I see this particular memorial as a symbol for a lost grave as opposed to Jesus – that’s just my interpretation though and I don’t expect everyone else to see it the same way.
@PetalsxPeril - This isn’t about the government endorsing a religion. This is about paying tribute to martyrs of this country.
The intent of the memorially doesn’t magically nullify the clear connotations of a cross.
…Honeslty, they should have the freedom to pray wherever they want- everyone should.
They can, just not governmentally funded, enforced, or led prayers. Displays on private grounds is kosher.
@CelestialTeapot - That does not change what it actually says. There isn’t even any such language as “separation of church and state.” What it *does* say is that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free expression of religion. I know you all hate that part, but it is still there. You people are so funny. Do you really think you will stomp out Christianity if you take down all the crosses and remove any reference to God? Ha! It has been tried for 2000 years, yet we’re still going strong. why do you hate to see any reference to Christianity if it really doesn’t have any real meaning to you? Why does it make you so angry that it is there?
@AibellFaeire - One could argue that this monument represents a mass grave for those lost.
It’s not. It’s not a fucking generic tomb for the fucking unknown soldier. And this point is entirely irrevelent.
I’ll grant that you’re right, and the cross represents the most magnificent, heartfealt memorial in the entire fucking universe. But at the point it additionally represents the Christian cross, it constitues the promotion of that religion.
Like I said, crosses were a universal way to depict a grave site…
Not universal– just in cultures with a heavy Christian influence.
…If this monument was supposed to represent a grave or resting place symbolically, then there is nothing religious about it.
The practice of the cross as a grave marker has unambigious Christian origins. Even granting a magically secular intent of the memorial, it doesn’t eliminate the Chrisitian connotations for the viewer. And as a memorial, the interpretations of the viewer is relevent.
@PetalsxPeril - It’s a memorial for those who died in WWI. It serves as a memoriam for those who have given up their lives. Many of them have graves. Some of them do not. Memorials can be seen as stand in graves for those who deserve to be honored in their rest, but don’t get to be.
Sure. But it’s still a cross.
People need to get over themselves with this whole political correctness thing.
The political signifiance of the First Amendment extends a bit beyond public nicities.
@MichaelCavaness - I don’t think it does. The cross seems to have a dual meaning in this country. When I see a cross on a grave or a memorial I don’t immediately think of Jesus dying on the cross. Look at our national cemetaries….
The difference is that the context for the cross isn’t an immediately recognizable national cementary. As a memorial, that alternate meaning of the cross is mitigated.
In most churches, the cross isn’t taken as a grave marker.
@greenbird321 - it’s obvious to anyone with a fully functional brain that there is no valid reason to raise a fuss about this cross and/or have it taken down.
Oh, RIGHT! We should allow violations to the fucking Bill of Rights as long as there are those who suggest that a fuss shouldn’t be raised.
Disinterest itself isn’t an argument.
@CelestialTeapot - *yawn* I’m disinterested in ridiculous, irrelevant rantings.
I think our next veterans’ memorial should be shaped like a giant crescent with a little star.
@Lithium98 - That’s a matter of opinion (unless you have a reference stating otherwise).
Your claim that my argument of opinion is a matter of opinion. Unless of course, you can cite otherwise. See! That approach is fucking lame– it’s aboslutely thoughtless and generic
I guess I should have been more specific in saying that I feel it doesn’t promote religion. Maybe I’m just numb to the blatant advertising that goes on in our society. I’d expect a promotion or advertisement to try and convince me to buy their product…
A Federal Circuit court ruled that a courthouse ten commandments display violated the establishement clause.
(a) Both displays– the WW I memorial the the courthouse display carry clear and specific religious meaning.
(b) Both displays are public. The WW I display is in the open, on public land. The courthouse display was in the the building’s lobby area.
Just as the ten commandments display is unconstitutional, so is the WW I cross display.
Maybe it technically does, maybe not. I don’t care. I’m tired of all this controversy about every little thing.
Yes. But I think it should have never been put up to begin with, I don’t know if it should be torn down unless families or veterans complain.
@greenbird321 - *yawn* I’m disinterested in ridiculous, irrelevant rantings.
It’s tragic. You’re mute.
@mtngirlsouth - That does not change what it actually says. There isn’t even any such language as “separation of church and state.”
For interpretation of the establishment clause, we must consider the prhase. Since the late-1800′s, the Supreme Court has used the writings of James Madison (hello? Framer’s intent?) in interpretation.
What it *does* say is that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free expression of religion. I know you all hate that part, but it is still there.
It’s 2009, not fucking 1803. In the past century, there had been landmark cases balancing the free exercise clause with the establishment clause. I’m not sure if you live in a cave, but cases like Engle v. Vitale (school prayers) and ACLU v. Mercer County (ten commandments display) has balanced similar cases against the “establishment” of religion.
@CelestialTeapot -
“The political signifiance of the First Amendment extends a bit beyond public nicities”
Maybe if we made concessions to ‘public nicities’ more often we would actually have time to worry and nitpick about something that actually MADE SENSE instead of fighting each other over whether veterans had the right or not to choose what kind of memorial was erected for their loved ones, or whether a memorial that has been fine for over 75 years should be taken down just because some people can’t handle the fact that Christianity has and always be a part of our nation’s heritage and is engrained in our symbology. Instead of defaming this perfectly innocent display of patriotism towards martyrs, how about you move on and focus on religious equality today? Taking down a memorial isn’t going to make anyone less or more accepting of other religions. It’s not going to erase Chrisitanity from America. So stop trying, and start doing something that actually matters.
And you might want to stop claiming that every point beside your own is ‘irrelevant’. An overwhelming majority of readers on this blog alone have repeatedly refuted and proved your own points to be not only redundant but irrelevant to this case. A Xangan even posted a VERY SIMILIAR CASE that, with your own precious Constitution, voted IN FAVOR of the memoriam. I suggest that you save your fingers for something that you actually can argue without an inflamed bias, and that you can attack logically without resorting to childish namecalling. Whether you believe it or not, the niceties in debate do matter. Its the difference between you sounding like an informed citizen of intelligence and a rambling, belligerant idiot who just can’t let it go when a) he’s wrong b) he’s outnumbered.
There is no separation of church and state to violate.
Some people really need to read the Constitution. Or at least understand concepts before taking them completely out of context.
@PetalsxPeril - And you might want to stop claiming that every point beside your own is ‘irrelevant’.
“Irrelevent” was a one-word summary of the following arugment.
An overwhelming majority of readers on this blog alone have repeatedly refuted and proved your own points to be not only redundant but irrelevant to this case.
Rather than this broadly hand-waving your own victory, why don’t you get to the nitty-gritty of arugmentation? Let your rebuttals do the talking.
A Xangan even posted a VERY SIMILIAR CASE that, with your own precious Constitution, voted IN FAVOR of the memoriam.
He posted a link and not an argument. I can’t be held responsible for the argument he was too lazy to make.
…and that you can attack logically without resorting to childish namecalling.
You’re a cunt. OH WAIT! Childish namecalling. By this transgression alone, I must be wrong in all the arguments I’ve made.
So stop trying, and start doing something that actually matters.
Correct Constitutional interpretation matters. Beyond the signifiance or non-significance of the case is whether the establishment or free exercise clause will be properly applied in this case. For, as I’m sure you know, it may serve as precedent for future cases– perhaps one with weightier importance.
@BebstersBlog2 - There is no separation of church and state to violate.
Some people really need to read the Constitution. Or at least understand concepts before taking them completely out of context.
Amongst the CONTEXT of the establishment clause is James Madison. He helped drafted the Constituion. It is from his writings that the United Supreme Court took and applied the phrasology.
@CelestialTeapot -
” can’t be held responsible for the argument he was too lazy to make”
or one that you were too lazy to click on, because you were too afraid and stuck up to actually have to look at the evidence against your precious argument- one you just can’t let go of after being repeatedly rebuttalled and proven wrong, both with your own Consitution, and public opinion (which is, i’m sorry to inform you, a portion of democracy)
If you’re going to post such comments as:
“I’m not sure if you live in a cave, but cases like Engle v. Vitale (school prayers) and ACLU v. Mercer County (ten commandments display) has balanced similar cases against the “establishment” of religion.”
And expect other people to know the outcomes of the cases or the context of the case, I expect you to have the decent common sense to check out the opposing side before you end up sounding like the rambling idiot that you are.
Quite frankly, the childish namecalling makes it seem like you can’t make a decent arguement without the logical fallacy of discrediting the opposing side ‘you’re a c*** , therefore your position is wrong’. Since you haven’t been able to budge or prove anything over anyone on the opposing side in these comments, I can see how you’ve had to resort to this to hang onto your argument. I pity you… but really, it’s getting old.
@CelestialTeapot -
‘Amongst the CONTEXT of the establishment clause is James Madison. He helped drafted the Constituion. It is from his writings that the United Supreme Court took and applied the phrasology.’
However, you are basing your arguments on the writing of Madison, and not the Constitution. The Establishment cause itself has no ‘seperation of church and state’, that was simply Madison’s intepretation and hopes for it. Are we really going to base our laws today on the writings of a man outside the Constitution? Seems to me like it’s your argument that’s becoming irrelevant
@PetalsxPeril - And expect other people to know the outcomes of the cases or the context of the case…
Sure, but I impacted the cases in an argument with an in-discussion implication. If you want to push on the existance or facts of the case, then challenge me on the point.
I made the assumptions that the cited cases were common knowledge. Engle v. Vitale shoudl at least ring a bell– it’s a part of any high school level U.S. government curriculum. The ACLU v. Mercer County case is recent to this decade.
Merely linking an esoteric case isn’t argumentation in and of itself.
Quite frankly, the childish namecalling makes it seem like you can’t make a decent arguement without the logical fallacy of discrediting the opposing side ‘you’re a c*** , therefore your position is wrong’.
Your sarcasm-meter is broken.
@PetalsxPeril - However, you are basing your arguments on the writing of Madison, and not the Constitution.
I didn’t, the United States Supreme Court of 1873 did.
The Establishment cause itself has no ‘seperation of church and state’, that was simply Madison’s intepretation and hopes for it.
There is an intelelctual and historical basis behind both the idea and phrasology of the “wall of seperation” between church and state. Assessment of the establishment caluse can only made in this light.
Are we really going to base our laws today on the writings of a man outside the Constitution?
Yes we are. Article III of the U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court and tasked them with interpreting the Constitution. It is they who reference Madison.
i am soooo sick of this shit ! cemeteries should have crosses ! a plain cross is non denominational ! whoever “they” are , “THEY” CAN JUST GO FUCK THEMSELVES !
@AibellFaeire - agreed, and amen if i can say that ! shit that might be a religious word.
@DirtyAndShaken - Ha. Well Im glad thats the point you were trying to make. =]
These issues should never even be up for debate. How ridiculous. So get rid of all the money, get rid of all references to anything remotely resembling Christianity, and you erase the bulk of our national monuments. Better wipe D.C. right off the map, too. So silly. There are other issues these people should be focused on. Sheesh. Burns my gizzard – if gizzard is the word I want.
No, The goverment is not forcing any one to worship it.
@badcats - Why should DC be blown off the map? What bulk of national monuments? I’m confused. I don’t remember seeing a bunch of crosses anywhere except Arlington.
I think it technically does, but I also think it doesn’t matter. If the Government is secular, that should mean no religious symbols, (or all, to be fair.) But I really don’t think it’s a big deal. It’s for a cause, it’s not just a symbol that’s there simply for the Christian Government officials or something. I’d say keep it there!
@Jazzyful - *grin* I was referring to places all over the US, not just Washington!
@catman517 - I quite agree.
Here’s what kind of sticks in my craw about this whole matter: the idea of monuments needing to be completely neutral is absurd. Whatever you create or erect is going to represent someone‘s beliefs. Any belief system is religious, whether you believe in the God of the universe or yourself or the tree in your backyard. It’s impossible to be “fair” to everyone, because you cannot accommodate everyone’s beliefs. Therefore, the “fairest” – no, the right and just thing to do – is to respect the beliefs which gave rise to the monument or work of art or state motto or whatever (particularly in a historical context) and MOVE ON.
@CelestialTeapot - I was referring to people who are against it who are not against it for reasons relating to religion. You don’t have any idea what my religion is or even if I have one.
@PetalsxPeril - While I don’t agree with the teapot’s obvious insecurities towards you, I have to say I disagree. To atheists, the cross does mean something. It symbolizes the thousands of reasons why they struggle in this country. And I mean that quite literally.
I don’t know if you’re atheist or not. But if you are, if you can’t tell that atheists are struggling here then you really need to open your eyes. How would you feel if a Swastika was carved anywhere? While the Holocaust was more recent and you might think of it being as an example of “ultimate severity” far more atheists were murdered in the name of Christianity. To condone one and not the other would be quite hypocritical.
@CelestialTeapot - We know it’s a violation of federal law and technically should be taken down. That’s obvious. Don’t be so bitter about it all the time. Are we going to have to take you off your eye?
The division between church and state was not set up to keep church out of the government, it was to keep the government out of the church.
@CelestialTeapot - You’re probably right, unless people know it’s a memorial they might think it was a religious symbol. And yes, the context of being in a church wouldn’t make someone think there were visiting someone’s grave. However, I see crosses planted all over the highways when I drive and I immediately recognize them to be markers of where people have died in a car wreck or some other type of accident. There is even a secular song about “Three wooden crosses” that talks about this exact type of thing. These crosses are on public grounds as well, maybe they should be removed too.
@badcats - Religious neutrality is pretty fair. Does anyone have a problem with the Vietnam memorial? Or the Washington monument? Or the Lincoln memorial? These things do not incorporate religious symbols, and hence are appropriate for government monuments.
I am not involoved with any religion and I am not offended by this at all. It is simply a monument and is no different than many other cultures have to comemorate significant events in history.
@herzog3000 - At Arlington National Cemetary they have headstones that represent the religion of the person buried there. (cross for Christian and Star of David for Jewish.) You also have to consider that around that time in American history, Christianity was more far-reaching than other religions.
@BunnyParfait - We know it’s a violation of federal law and technically should be taken down. That’s obvious. Don’t be so bitter about it all the time.
Just having fun. ^_^
I’m usually impassive as I comment. You’re one of the few users who, on occasion, annoy me.
@badcats - Here’s what kind of sticks in my craw about this whole matter: the idea of monuments needing to be completely neutral is absurd. Whatever you create or erect is going to represent someone’s beliefs.
The threshold is set fairly high. The offense isn’t any reference to religion or the practice to religion, it’s one that has the “…have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion..” linky
The cross, as a large general display, screams of Christianity.
…whether you believe in the God of the universe or yourself or the tree in your backyard.
1. It is impossible to control for cases we don’t know of (whatever nutso religion you invent), but we can control for symbols and representation that we do understand.
2. Also playing in the role is the intent and understanding of the individual furthering the law or policy. An unintentional slip of religious irreverence is very different from knowingly erecting a six-foot-tall cross.
…the “fairest” – no, the right and just thing to do – is to respect the beliefs which gave rise to the monument or work of art or state motto or whatever (particularly in a historical context) and MOVE ON…
This isn’t what the First Amendment suggests. Just because a religious sword is ceremornial or old doesn’t mean it can’t cut.
Being that it’s a memorial, no. But I see where you’re going with this.
@SirNickDon - Great point!
No. This cross isn’t symbolizing Jesus’ death; it is symbolizing the death of soldiers. It should stay. They died for the government, not for their religion. It should definately stay.
@CelestialTeapot - I’m honored. =D
@florida2008 - No. This cross isn’t symbolizing Jesus’ death; it is symbolizing the death of soldiers.
The dual role of the cross didn’t arise out of unintential coincidence. It is because the cross explicitly references the Christian faith and ideas of the Christian afterlife that it has use as a grave marker.
@MichaelCavaness - You’re probably right, unless people know it’s a memorial they might think it was a religious symbol.
Especially from a distance, out of view of the memorial’s plaque plaque. =P
I just googled some pics of Arlington National Cementary. For the most part, the gravestone crosses are small and subdued: linky
@CelestialTeapot - While I see where you’re coming from, and certainly can’t say that you’re wrong because half of me agrees with you while the other half feels that we in support of complete separation of church and state should choose our battles better, I’m not about to argue with someone who is getting insulting and rude. The swearing was completely unnecessary – You’re an intelligent person, you can make your arguments without getting angry about them.
Definitely not! If it has to be removed, then someone better clean out Arlington National Cemetery. (Note the sarcasm). People have been grossly misinterpreting that so-called clause in the Constitution for years, and it annoys me.
Nope. It’s a war memorial. ♥
@AibellFaeire - I’m not about to argue with someone who is getting insulting and rude. The swearing was completely unnecessary…
Coolio. Still, thank you for the response.
You’re an intelligent person, you can make your arguments without getting angry about them.
Intelligence is seated in the head. Mood is seated in the heart. =P
@CelestialTeapot - Perhaps the head is the better thing to listen to when attempting to make arguments, as logic is seated there as well. =P
@thinxie - Works both ways, actually.
I could be wrong, but I believe the graves of Jewish soldiers bear the star of david.
Seperation between church and state is not in the Constitution, so there’s really nothing to be violating.
Turn the cross upside down and it’ll be fine.
The Earth and this World are both had no limits and boundaries, it’s us who set the borders and the restrictions.
I believe the cross was there before this was a federal park; I’m not sure about that. If it was… doesn’t seem fair to take it down just because it became federal property.