Don't Tear Me Down, Respect the Veterans.

[Snowman]

The ACLU protects the constitution and everyone's rights. They don't care who you are, if you believe your civil liberties are being infringed upon, and if the ACLU agrees with you, then they will fight for your case. This is not a case of the ACLU being anti-religious, this is a case of the ACLU protecting somebody's freedom of Religion and freedom from religion.

What we need on this story is more information. Is the cross on public land? If the land is owned by the government, no, it is not legal to have the cross there as it symbolizes a single religion, and it can be interpreted as a government endorsement of a single religion if the cross is allowed to stand. This is illegal. It should be not allowed to stand. The rights to NOT have a government sponsored religion are also in the constitution. Don't act like it's legal because its commemorating downed soldiers. It's not. I am not against soldiers, in fact war memorials are a good thing. But the instant it becomes a single religious icon, it becomes religious, and since it is on presumably government land, and only a single religion is represented instead of all of them possible, it is illegal.

If your civil rights were ever violated, you could give the ACLU a call. They would fight for you. It's what they do. The ACLU is a good thing that sometimes does things that are disagreeable in the name of the constitution and civil liberties for all.

I think the big picture your missing here is that the sterile white cross is an international symbol for a fallen soldier kind of like the rifle upside down stuck in the ground by the bayonet with the dog tags and helmet on top. I have to respectfully disagree with you. I don't believe the ACLU is a good thing, guarantee they wouldn't fight for my civil liberties if they had been violated, we won't get in to semantics. Also I sincerely believe that even if that is government property, it was erected by soldiers and last time I checked this country's founding fathers brought us all here under God. Most of the men that monument memorializes went to China, France, Belgium, England, and several other countries to fight for God, family, and country. I am not an extremely religious person and can't stand people that preach at you until they are blue in the face, however I think we oft forget what this country was founded on. You have every right not to look at that cross, you have every right not to read the bible, and you absolutely have every right to observe your own religion. But I absolutely guarantee you if this was a memorial for a Religious minority and someone from lets say the Catholic church wanted it gone because it "infringed on their civil liberties" the ACLU would be there to defend the minority because it is more prosperous for the ACLU to do so. So with all do respect I disagree and leave you with this, after your done with this why don't you try the crosses in Arlington (have walked the entire grounds personally), then when your done there why don't you try England, and if you have big enough cajones try taking down the crosses at Normandy. I DARE YOU.

[TheGreatSatan]

I'm an atheist and I still respect crosses...

Not me.

[Snowman]

Not me.

Atheism: An organized religion against organized religion... just saying, might want to go with agnostic if thats how you truly feel.

[Drum Thumper]

Not me.

So, tell me, what about crosses that one sometimes sees on the sides of highways in memory of a loved one that perished is a car accident? Any respect for those?

[Quakken]

I think the big picture your missing here is that the sterile white cross is an international symbol for a fallen soldier kind of like the rifle upside down stuck in the ground by the bayonet with the dog tags and helmet on top.

They should have made the thing they erected on public property a bayonet with dog tags and helmet on top instead of a religious icon. Then we wouldn't be having this conversation, and their monument would be more to the point and clear.

I have to respectfully disagree with you. I don't believe the ACLU is a good thing, guarantee they wouldn't fight for my civil liberties if they had been violated, we won't get in to semantics.

If your civil liberties were severely disrupted and the ACLU thought that your case could make an impact, then they would fight for you. The ACLU doesn't discriminate in the types of cases they get, and representing people in civil liberty disputes is what the ACLU does. I don't understand why the ACLU automatically wouldn't represent you, do you think they only represent radical leftists who want to burn crosses and kill babies? After you have your civil liberties grossly denied by somebody or something and the ACLU doesn't want to represent you, then you can make such a facetious claim.

Also I sincerely believe that even if that is government property, it was erected by soldiers and last time I checked this country's founding fathers brought us all here under God, and nobody else's God.

The only reason we can still have "under god" on our currency and the pledge of allegiance is because it is said that it represents all gods, whether you are a jew, a christian, a muslim or you worship the flying spaghetti monster. The cross represents Jesus and the majority of the Christian's God.

Most of the men that monument memorializes went to China,

Japan?

France, Belgium, England, and several other countries to fight for God, family, and country. I am not an extremely religious person and can't stand people that preach at you until they are blue in the face, however I think we oft forget what this country was founded on. You have every right not to look at that cross, you have every right not to read the bible, and you absolutely have every right to observe your own religion.

You also have the right to be completely and utterly unreligious. Having a solitary cross on government land like this, only representing one religion, is illegal because it would mean the government is taking a side on religion, a clear violation of church and state seperation. The government can have no part in religion, at all. It can't. It's not allowed to allow religion, minority religion or otherwise, to have superiority or inferiority over any other religion in its doings, and true church and state separation would entail that the government does nothing to favor any religion at all, at any time. This means absolutely no crosses or religious relics on government ground.

But I absolutely guarantee you if this was a memorial for a Religious minority and someone from lets say the Catholic church wanted it gone because it "infringed on their civil liberties" the ACLU would be there to defend the minority because it is more prosperous for the ACLU to do so.

WHEN has the ACLU EVER defended a religious monument on public grounds? WHEN? It has never happened! The ACLU is non-profit organization, and they fight for the LAW AND CONSTITUTION. They don't care how big or little you are, if the case will be a large civil liberties case, then they will fight for the side that is constitutionally sound! Just because it's a tiny church against a larger church doesn't make a difference in the ACLU's eyes, they will fight for the catholic church if their liberties are being denied by whoever, whether it be someone erecting giant stars of david on public ground, or its someone in a government office trying to push legislation that will make going to church illegal. This is another contrived, straw man, facetious argument. Just because you believe something doesn't mean that it's true, and just because you "guarantee" something doesn't make your logic infallible.

So with all do respect I disagree and leave you with this, after your done with this why don't you try the crosses in Arlington (have walked the entire grounds personally)

I've noticed several other religions represented at Arlington, also. There were some judaism stars on top of some grave stones and I'm sure that if you were a muslim or an atheist you could equal representation in your death also. If all of the monuments at arlen were christian, you would have an argument here. They aren't. You don't.

, then when your done there why don't you try England, and if you have big enough cajones try taking down the crosses at Normandy. I DARE YOU.

I do not know the laws in england, and normandy is in france. They might have less strict laws there. They might have some integration between the church and the state. Maybe normandy is private property. Who knows? Luckily, this debate is about seperation of church and state in America, and not france or some other european country.

[mtekk]

Japan?

Uh, in WWI we were not fighting Japan.

Anyways, the cross does not have to associated with religion or in particular Christianity. The Romans used the cross as a execution/torture device. Just because one man who some believe is divine was executed on a cross does not mean all crosses are in memorial to him. The person who complained about this cross needs to be more tolerant of others (as does the ACLU in this case). Since the cross is just a cross, no associated Christ figure (dead, dieing or otherwise), it can not be absolutely associated with Christianity (and therefore the ACLU needs to back down off their high horses). Also, since the structure is 75 years old, I wonder if it can get into the national historic registry, protecting it from destruction.

[Quakken]

Uh, in WWI we were not fighting Japan.

Anyways, the cross does not have to associated with religion or in particular Christianity. The Romans used the cross as a execution/torture device. Just because one man who some believe is divine was executed on a cross does not mean all crosses are in memorial to him. The person who complained about this cross needs to be more tolerant of others (as does the ACLU in this case). Since the cross is just a cross, no associated Christ figure (dead, dieing or otherwise), it can not be absolutely associated with Christianity (and therefore the ACLU needs to back down off their high horses). Also, since the structure is 75 years old, I wonder if it can get into the national historic registry, protecting it from destruction.

You have a point. It will be interesting to see how this case plays out. Seeing as how there wouldn't be any real reason to be using the cross only if the romans used it to crucify people, it is a solid symbol of christianity. It is the reason we still see the cross today, is because Christ died on it. It is the most commonly associated object with Christianity. I want to see this case unfold and see if, because there isn't an Christ figure on the cross, the courts say that it isn't a symbol of Christianity. Who knows. We know my stance on the issue, I think that it is pretty much the symbol of Christianity because we would literally never see a cross used in symbolism today had Christ not died on one, but it this case could go either way.

[nevermind1534]

If the land is owned by the government, no, it is not legal to have the cross there as it symbolizes a single religion, and it can be interpreted as a government endorsement of a single religion if the cross is allowed to stand.

No, it's not necessarily illegal. It could also be considered historic at this point. I don't see anybody depicted as Jesus nailed to it, either.

edit: I didn't see your last post.

[killergamer]

Atheism: An organized religion against organized religion... just saying, might want to go with agnostic if thats how you truly feel.

Wrong... You can be Atheist and still respect those people that believe in christ and god. You just don't believe in it your self.

Real Definition: Atheism is the position that deities do not exist, or the rejection of theism. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence. Doesn't say any were you cant respect people and there beliefs...

[nevermind1534]

Wrong... You can be Atheist and still respect those people that believe in christ and god. You just don't believe in it your self.

Real Definition: Atheism is the position that deities do not exist, or the rejection of theism. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence. Doesn't say any were you cant respect people and there beliefs...

That is correct.