http://files.schuminweb.com/journal/2009/full-size/arlington-cemetery-03.jpg
http://image.shutterstock.com/displ...e-at-arlington-national-cemetery-69019126.jpg
http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff347/b0ttl3s/muslimamericangrave.jpg
http://www.pagancentric.org/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/arlingtonpagans.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/YsI8u.jpg
Not quite the same, those were chosen by the indivdiual (or in the absence of a directive, by their next of kin ) to represent the faith of the fallen warriors interned there. The government didn't impose them on the families.
From the links above you can view not only Christian symbols, but Jewish, Wican, and Atheist symbology.
>>>>
As a die-hard atheist, I believe the cross should go. The cross does an injustice to all atheists and to peoples of other religions who died in the American wars that this cross was meant to memorialize.
I just don't get how all religious symbols came to be viewed as oppressive......I don't get it. Just because a religious symbol is present, doesn't mean that anyone is saying that religion is better than all others. The majority of people, at the time, felt this best presented an appropriate memorial. Just because the world around the memorial has changed, doesn't mean what the symbol was meant for and whom it stood for has. That is what a memorial is for. A memory. Not to be changed and altered with the times around it. Next thing you know people will say that the crosses over graves in Arlington National Cemetery should be removed as well. It is government property after all.
The fact of the matter is, the majority of people in this country still subscribe to some sort of Christian religion or belief system and used to be even more predominantly Christian. That means you're going to find a few memorials and landmarks that represent that. Should we change the history of our country just to appease to people today or should we remember that time period in our country's history for what it was, a more Christian time? Shouldn't we remember future moments of our country for what they are going to be? A more progressive and neutral time? I see no issue with that. The automatic belief that any religion presenting a symbol of their beliefs as oppressive and offensive to everyone else is paranoid and delusional IMO.
I just don't get how all religious symbols came to be viewed as oppressive......
If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise for 30 per cent, you're 30 per cent ahead.
For purposes of this discussion and your definition, I am an atheist.
I do not mind people promoting religion at all. When individuals are out proselytizing on the street, I can walk right by and my feelings are not hurt. When they do it on television, I change the channels.
My objection comes, and the law is broken, when GOVERNMENT promotes religion. The Constitution demands neutrality from the government on religious subjects and themes, and especially actions.
Why that is so difficult for some people to understand is beyond me.eace
People who despise America or hate that America is essentially a free and capitalist society try to destroy all of the foundations of this Nation in order to try to fashion America into something it isnt'
Fighting crosses while promoting drugs and food stamps. Seems like a strange new country is evolving in the former
Superpower..
I'm an agnostic, Henry David, and respond the same way you do with the exception of seeing seeing a cross on a hill, or on a highway roadside to mark where a pedestrian has been killed. It's government land there also but what pettiness would be required for anyone to ask that the cross be moved because its the government promoting religion?
I really don't care about seeing a cross and feel it might make a nice break in the landscape and could wonder at the strong feeling of anyone who put it there.. A tree might have the same effect. A billboard would not.
I don't know how the government is promoting religion in this instance. A cross has meaning to some and not to others. I don't know why people would spend all their time and money on a threat that isn't there. It seems like a live and let live situation and these people attacking a cross put up by their fellow Americans should be putting their time and energy to better use elsewhere.
I do understand your point, and it's a good point.
I object to the cross on the hill in California ONLY because of how it plays versus the rule of law. Because I support Americans United for Separation of Church & State, I've been reading about the legal battle over that symbol for years. I thought some private entity was going to buy either the real estate or the cross itself, but have not been keeping up with the case.
IF it is government property that the cross is on, it should be removed. I don't object to the cross itself, I object to the cross being on government property.
Ever been to Arlington Cemetery?
I'm an agnostic, Henry David, and respond the same way you do with the exception of seeing seeing a cross on a hill, or on a highway roadside to mark where a pedestrian has been killed. It's government land there also but what pettiness would be required for anyone to ask that the cross be moved because its the government promoting religion?
I really don't care about seeing a cross and feel it might make a nice break in the landscape and could wonder at the strong feeling of anyone who put it there.. A tree might have the same effect. A billboard would not.
I don't know how the government is promoting religion in this instance. A cross has meaning to some and not to others. I don't know why people would spend all their time and money on a threat that isn't there. It seems like a live and let live situation and these people attacking a cross put up by their fellow Americans should be putting their time and energy to better use elsewhere.
No, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night!
How does the Arlington cemetery compare to the hill in CA?
You'll have strong feelings when it's Islamic symbols instead of yours.
government property with crosses on it
One a cemetery, the other not. More importantly, the cemetery includes the symbols of other religions.
its a much ado about nothing. The people whining have stupid grievances that extend far past faux indignation over a cross
You'll have strong feelings when it's Islamic symbols instead of yours.
I agree that it's much ado about nothing.
But it seems that if we are going to tell ourselves that we live under the rule of law, well then, we need to live under the rule of law.
As so many wise men have observed over the centuries, it's best to render unto Caesar what is his. The unholy marriage of state and church is bad news for the citizens.
I don't think there is any 'marriage' here and certainly no government promotion. Sometimes a cross is just a cross.
this country was founded by Islamists?
I agree that it's much ado about nothing.
But it seems that if we are going to tell ourselves that we live under the rule of law, well then, we need to live under the rule of law.
As so many wise men have observed over the centuries, it's best to render unto Caesar what is his. The unholy marriage of state and church is bad news for the citizens.
In that case, the government should have never taken possession of the property, since the cross was already there at the time.
Technically speaking it was "a cross" at the time, not "the cross". IIRC there was a wooden cross erected in 1913 (which is one of the reasons why the cross being there as a memorial to WWI, WWII, and Korean War seems odd). Originally the property was private property and deaded to the city when the owner passed. The current cross replaced the original (or a wooden) cross after it fell down in a storm.
>>>>
I agree that it's much ado about nothing.
But it seems that if we are going to tell ourselves that we live under the rule of law, well then, we need to live under the rule of law.
As so many wise men have observed over the centuries, it's best to render unto Caesar what is his. The unholy marriage of state and church is bad news for the citizens.
The property was seized through eminent domain and the cross was already there at that time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?