Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its not getting worked up, I personally don't care but i know about the separation of church and state and if you ask my opinion and i had to choose yay or nay it would be nay. Most liberals i know feel the same way.
Well, sounds petty if you ask me. I can understand if this is a brand new monument, but a 92 year old monument all of sudden created a problem? LOL yeah.
It is not even about the liberals, I didn't say anything about the liberals. lol SOME liberal cd posters think the monument should stay too. (they said so in another thread.)
We have never fought a religious war so far. There was never a need for the cross at all.
I think it should be donated to a local church with a historical plaque attached, and a new monument made to honor the valiant fallen of the distant past that's much better fitting than the cross ever was.
A big V (for valor, or for victory) wouldn't be any harder to build than a cross.
Should it be made retroactive to include all religious symbols, or do you mean going forward?
That could be important because if this ruling is allowed to stand, it will be simple for American Humanist to force removal of hundreds of thousands of religious symbols. Even ones that stand on personal burial places if they are maintained by the government.
Why not let the town decide what they want in regards to all old monuments. As for any new ones, keep all religious displays off of taxpayer owned land.
We have never fought a religious war so far. There was never a need for the cross at all.
I think it should be donated to a local church with a historical plaque attached, and a new monument made to honor the valiant fallen of the distant past that's much better fitting than the cross ever was.
A big V (for valor, or for victory) wouldn't be any harder to build than a cross.
I think going forward, individual soldier should still have the right to choose their own burial. It is about them, not anybody's opinion about religion.
If a religious group want to honor these war deads in their own ways, then yes, find a private property and fund it themselves.
However, in this particular case, let's call a spade a spade. This is a 92 year old monument, it should stay where it is now. Now sure why it is such a big deal.
It is always The Left who wants these types of symbols removed.
Because we're concerned with the rule of law.
In America, that means no public funding for private religious iconography.
Quote:
The Left brings law suits and forces everyone in their way to stand aside and let The Left decide what symbols and traditions should be honored.
The American Humanist Association is the culprit in this case. A visit to their website clearly states that they are anti-God, not just anti-Christian.
Why should this be accepted as an American standard? It never was before.
The government isn't supposed to show preference of one religion over another. They made the right decision. Religious symbols in a government cemetery shouldn't be a problem as long as those of any or no religion are welcome to be buried there.
The government isn't supposed to show preference of one religion over another. They made the right decision. Religious symbols in a government cemetery shouldn't be a problem as long as those of any or no religion are welcome to be buried there.
You missed the point. The point here is that this monument has a 92 years old history. Back then, most soldiers were probably Christians or they chose a Christian burial. It is not uncommon to see a cross at ANY funeral site or a memorial monument.
I can understand your argument if this monument is new. But this one is 92 years old. This monument is to honor the ww1 war dead. Why should ANYBODY all of sudden have a problem?
Clever stuff, but do you address the problem?
The problem is, if we remove this symbol, do we scour America in search of all symbols or do we change our behavior going forward?
And is this really about "the rule of law"? Do you feel the same way about, say, marijuana laws? Speed limit? Are you so devoted to the rule of law?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,428,613 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307
Granted. I accept that. Good idea, going forward.
But the American Humanist Association would object to that, too. They want no religious symbols at all. Anywhere.
What do you think about that idea?
On public property with public funds, I think either the religions of all who made sacrifices should be represented or there should be no religious representation, I oppose any religion being singularly promoted with public funds. Our money may say "In God We Trust" but mentions no specific god, of which there are more than 5,000 in recorded history.
As old as the monument in question is perhaps adding other religious affiliations would be a better solution than removing it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
christian monuments = christian responsibility
