Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Fed Appeals Court Rules a Cross at a Memorial is Unconstitutional

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Fed Appeals Court Rules a Cross at a Memorial is Unconstitutional

    (sigh)

    What's next? Replacing all crosses marking graves at Arlington National Cemetary with simple headstones?

    "The appeals court, recognizing volatile feelings generated on both sides by the case, wrote that America's war veterans can and should be honored, "but without the imprimatur of state-endorsed religion.""

    I know what the court can do with it's "imprimatur," as well as with the four-story cross.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member 25sierraman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Alexandria , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    144
    If I am buried at a veterans cemetery and there is debate as to weather I can have a cross or not I will go zombie on them.
    HOOAH?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    (sigh)

    What's next? Replacing all crosses marking graves at Arlington National Cemetary with simple headstones?
    There's a fundamental difference between a cross on a headstone at Arlington and one on federal land. Primarily, a cross is not the only thing that can be on an Arlington tombstone. All of these are authorized.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  4. #4
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    The issue was the cross displayed not from a grave, but on the land itself. I think that this ruling will not stop a veteran from being buried and having a cross on their tombstone. Court cases tend to be argued along a fine line and ruled along the same line.

    It was a Jewish group who raised the fuss. It makes sense that veterans of different religious beliefs would prefer to be buried under their own God or whatever symbol they want to be buried under.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    It was a Jewish group who raised the fuss. It makes sense that veterans of different religious beliefs would prefer to be buried under their own God or whatever symbol they want to be buried under.
    I can see why people of non-Christian backgrounds might prefer not to be memoralized using Christian symbolism. Would Christian families possibly be offended if their loved ones were memorialized using Islmic, Jewish or Atheist symbols at the State's choosing? My guess is that alot of them would find it offensive.

    I just don't see the purpose of the State choosing which religion its going to sponsor and then push that choice in any way onto its citizenry. Leave that up to the families to decide.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    I think some of you need to go back and read the article, particularly "The site of the 43-foot-tall cross overlooking the Pacific was acquired from the city of San Diego by the federal government through eminent domain in 2006."

    Point: The government did NOT erect the cross. That was done in 1913, by the original owners, back when it was private land, and 93 years prior to it being acquired by the fed.

    So, what's next? Sandblasting every reference made to any religion from all public buildings, parks, and the "In God We Trust" from our money?
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I think some of you need to go back and read the article, particularly "The site of the 43-foot-tall cross overlooking the Pacific was acquired from the city of San Diego by the federal government through eminent domain in 2006."

    Point: The government did NOT erect the cross. That was done in 1913, by the original owners, back when it was private land, and 93 years prior to it being acquired by the fed.

    So, what's next? Sandblasting every reference made to any religion from all public buildings, parks, and the "In God We Trust" from our money?
    First, it was acquired from the city of San Diego, not from private citizens. Just because it's been there a long time, does not mean it should ever have been there nor should it remain. The cross has been erected on government property, and the issue has been in legal crossfire a lot longer back than 2006.

    Point: The government has paid for maintenance and upkeep of the cross, has acted in a number of ways to show preferential treatment to keep the cross there, and has violated both US establishment clause, Art 1 Sec 4 of CA's constitution, and Art 16 Sec 5 of CA's constitution.

    As for your question at the end, two alternatives exist: allow any religious or non-religious group who so desires to erect a monument of whatever nature they see fit upon the shared common space, or allow none to do so. "In god we trust" should not be on our money, but that's a separate issue.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •