Recommended Posts

Posted

Frank Buono, a former deputy superintendent of the preserve, filed a lawsuit with the help of the ACLU, claiming federal officials were acting unfairly.

I hope the ACLU prevails in allowing the memorial to stay intact. It was after all, erected 75 years ago to honor war veterans.

Posted

I saw the story on the news. I would like the cross remain standing under one condition. I hope the court allows any other religions the freedom to erect their "belief symbol" right next to the cross.

Posted

by that logic, they should eliminate all religious symbols at arlington national cemetery too

Arlington allows all recognized symbols so there is no problem. Here they said no to the Buddhist while allowing the cross to stay. They are promoting one over the other. That is the problem

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

United States Department of Veterans Affairs emblems for headstones and markers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Posted

Stupid, stupid, stupid!!! Maybe we should destroy all the ancient religious symbols that have been found on "government" land. Someone ought to sue to have the ancient pyramids of Egypt, Mezzo America, and other places, as well as things like Stonehenge, the temples of ancient Greece and everything else of such nature on “public” land to be destroyed.

We should not allow the names of the week (Tuesday, Thursday and Friday) that reference any religious deity to be displayed in any government office. We should not allow the name of the planets in our solar system to have religious names to be taught in public schools. Judges should not wear robes that represent pagan deities.

No wait – let’s just discriminate against the Jewish – Christian based religions and call ourselves tolerant and diverse.

The Traveler

Posted · Hidden
Hidden

The cross is a historical monument, and should stay where it is.

People often get confused by issues such as the Ten Commandments signs,

Posted

The cross is a historic memorial and should be allowed to stay where it is.

I think people get confused as to why, as mentioned in the story, one Ten Commandments monument is ordered removed, while another is allowed to stay. It is because of its historicity. If the feature has performed a long and integral purpose to the physical location, it is historic, and should be looked on as such when deciding if it is a church/state violation.

In the case of the Ten Commandments monuments, one was an integral part of the building's history. The other, which was brand new, clearly was not.

Given this cross' history, I don't see how the memorial could be ordered taken down. I would even be fine with the government maintaining the memorial since it now owns the land.

I think it would be a travesty to remove this cross.

Elphaba

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...