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.

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.

since9 said:

(sigh)

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Beretta92FSLady said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

since9 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.