Supreme Court covers Cross

#28
#28
This cross was put up prior to it being a national park to commemorate fallen soldiers. It is and should be preserved as such. If this cannot be there as a memorial to the Christian soldiers who died, why can we have cross or Star of David symbols or crescent moons in a military cemetary? It really is the same thing, whether you want to believe so or not. I am an advocate of keeping it. It was there before, let it stay. Just like if some other symbol was there before, it should stay as well. That is the difference no one is seeing here. Not only that, the VFW does all of the upkeep. It was a war memorial placed before the land was government owned, just to stress that point a little further.
 
#29
#29
JBl, my point is that freedom of religion does not mean "within the confines of the religions we here in Philadelphia right now happen to think are legitimate."

Your response to my point about freedom of the press or freedom of speech doesn;t answer it. The First Amendment does not refer to "print" and so therefore one would not limit the principle to print just because print was all they had at the time. Similarly, the BOR does not refer to freedom of only Christian religions, and so therefore just because that is what they knew back then does not support adding that phrase in now.
 
#30
#30
If they do get this passed, will it open the door for crosses and the Star of David to be removed from a national cemetary such as Arlington? After all it is national land.
 
#32
#32
lawgator1 said:
JBl, my point is that freedom of religion does not mean "within the confines of the religions we here in Philadelphia right now happen to think are legitimate."

Your response to my point about freedom of the press or freedom of speech doesn;t answer it. The First Amendment does not refer to "print" and so therefore one would not limit the principle to print just because print was all they had at the time. Similarly, the BOR does not refer to freedom of only Christian religions, and so therefore just because that is what they knew back then does not support adding that phrase in now.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. I think I understand the point you are making, although your example of "here in Philadelphia" is somewhat extreme as clearly that was not the case. Rather, a primary (though not the only) reason for inclusion of the 1st amendment was that some states (not just metro Philly) worshipped differently and there would not have been support for a national religion. In fact, many baptists and others were in favor of the clause because they feared Catholicism may have been chosen.

However, it seems your primary argument is that even though the founders could not foresee changes in technology (beyond print) or religion (beyond Christianity... although there actually was some awareness - though limited - of other religions), that the principle should remain and changes should not be made based on what we know now. So let me address these two points...

1) as I stated previously, HOW something is communicated (i.e. print, radio, TV, internet) does not change WHAT is communicated. Freedom of speech addresses the WHAT and not the HOW, so the principle isn't really affected at all by changes in technology.

2) I couldn't agree more that you have to take the principle of what was originally written, and apply it to the current environment. Again, the primary reason for freedom of religion - at the time - was to appeal to all the states (and people) to ensure ratification and to avoid a church driven government as this is why most came to the states to begin with.

Even the creators of the constitution were wise enough to recognize and acknowledge (through article V) that what they put forth was a living document, and that it should be amended as things change... thank God. Is anyone against voting rights and term limits? I'm sure there was comfort from both parties in knowing that, at most, we would have to suffer through Clinton and/or Bush for only 8 years. I think our founders were extremenly intelligent in crafting the constitution, which includes allowing for modifications.
 
#33
#33
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Thanks for the clarification. I think I understand the point you are making, although your example of "here in Philadelphia" is somewhat extreme as clearly that was not the case. Rather, a primary (though not the only) reason for inclusion of the 1st amendment was that some states (not just metro Philly) worshipped differently and there would not have been support for a national religion. In fact, many baptists and others were in favor of the clause because they feared Catholicism may have been chosen.

However, it seems your primary argument is that even though the founders could not foresee changes in technology (beyond print) or religion (beyond Christianity... although there actually was some awareness - though limited - of other religions), that the principle should remain and changes should not be made based on what we know now. So let me address these two points...

1) as I stated previously, HOW something is communicated (i.e. print, radio, TV, internet) does not change WHAT is communicated. Freedom of speech addresses the WHAT and not the HOW, so the principle isn't really affected at all by changes in technology.

2) I couldn't agree more that you have to take the principle of what was originally written, and apply it to the current environment. Again, the primary reason for freedom of religion - at the time - was to appeal to all the states (and people) to ensure ratification and to avoid a church driven government as this is why most came to the states to begin with.

Even the creators of the constitution were wise enough to recognize and acknowledge (through article V) that what they put forth was a living document, and that it should be amended as things change... thank God. Is anyone against voting rights and term limits? I'm sure there was comfort from both parties in knowing that, at most, we would have to suffer through Clinton and/or Bush for only 8 years. I think our founders were extremenly intelligent in crafting the constitution, which includes allowing for modifications.
Click to expand...


I don't know if I would say modification so much as I would say that it lends itself to application and, dare I say it, interpretation, in light of the current circumstances at the time.

When I say that, I do not mean that the principle is manipulated -- only that its application is adjusted to reflect what, in all practical terms, is meaningful at the time.

In that regard you and I agree that the authors were extremely gifted in putting those principles down on paper in such a manner that they are susceptible to modern interpretation. I think a lot of people fail to realize how well schooled a number of them were in things like philosophy, and also that at that time in Europe there were some tremendous thinkers who influenced the leaders here.
 
#35
#35
lawgator1 said:
In that regard you and I agree that the authors were extremely gifted in putting those principles down on paper in such a manner that they are susceptible to modern interpretation. I think a lot of people fail to realize how well schooled a number of them were in things like philosophy, and also that at that time in Europe there were some tremendous thinkers who influenced the leaders here.
Click to expand...

Fair enough... and the above is very true. They would put most of our current group of politicians to shame, not just in their level of intelligence, but moreso in their reasoning and application.
 
#36
#36
great_britain_greater.jpg


:eek:lol:
 
#40
#40
BigPapaVol said:
Seriously?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Yeah. Did you even read the article?

A former National Park Service employee, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued to have the cross removed or covered after the agency refused to allow erection of a Buddhist memorial nearby. Frank Buono describes himself as a practicing Catholic who has no objection to religious symbols, but he took issue with the government's decision to allow the display of only the Christian symbol.
Click to expand...

So tell me right now how any of this would be going forward had the agency not refused the Buddhist memorial. If Arlington is only allowing crosses and not the star of david there would have been a similar uproar and court battle. Likewise, Arlington should have to allow a Buddhist headstone if that is the soldiers faith, same with the star and crescent for muslims. Point blank...if you leave the cross, you have to be open to allowing memorials for other faiths, otherwise it is a blatant violation of the establishment clause. Otherwise, the cross needs to come down. This is what this is really about.

So again, I ask how could a ruling of taking the cross down set the precedence for crosses and david stars at Arlington?
 
#41
#41
The ACLU has been searching for years, to find someone to bring this charge.
They will use this ruling as a way to have someone want an Arlington marker that will be rejected. That opens the door to have ALL the markers removed.
 
Last edited:
#42
#42
rjd970 said:
Yeah. Did you even read the article?



So tell me right now how any of this would be going forward had the agency not refused the Buddhist memorial. If Arlington is only allowing crosses and not the star of david there would have been a similar uproar and court battle. Likewise, Arlington should have to allow a Buddhist headstone if that is the soldiers faith, same with the star and crescent for muslims. Point blank...if you leave the cross, you have to be open to allowing memorials for other faiths, otherwise it is a blatant violation of the establishment clause. Otherwise, the cross needs to come down. This is what this is really about.

So again, I ask how could a ruling of taking the cross down set the precedence for crosses and david stars at Arlington?
Click to expand...

What does the origin of the fight have to do with the precedent set in the ruling? The article is absolutely immaterial. If those extraneous facts drove the ruling, it was absolutely dead wrong.

I appreciate your atheist crusade, but you're off base.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#43
#43
BigPapaVol said:
What does the origin of the fight have to do with the precedent set in the ruling? The article is absolutely immaterial. If those extraneous facts drove the ruling, it was absolutely dead wrong.

I appreciate your atheist crusade, but you're off base.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

You can't be serious. Explain to me how those extraneous facts, (which are the foundation to the case at hand) aren't completely and fully material to the ruling with regard to the first amendment.

Your little atheist charge is cute but it has nothing to do with the question at hand. I, just like the good practicing Catholic, am looking at this strictly from a constitutional standpoint.

If the suit is based on the park service deciding which religious symbols are appropriate and which ones aren't, then it is absolutely material to the ruling. You are way off base (or don't understand what is being litigated) if you think any kind of ruling that takes the cross down is going to set a precedence at other parks that want to put a cross up. If the cross is ordered to be taken down then the precedence is the park service can't allow one religious symbol to be put up and not another. I honestly don't care, leave the cross up...but you can't deny the Buddhists the same right.
 
#44
#44
rjd970 said:
You can't be serious. Explain to me how those extraneous facts, (which are the foundation to the case at hand) aren't completely and fully material to the ruling with regard to the first amendment.

The ruling wasn't about the surrounding fact of the case. If it was, it is retribution for a decision and that makes it dead wrong. Rulings on this topic aren't about retribution. They are about the establishment clause. If the fact that another religious symbol was precluded is the driving force behind this decision, it's senseless.

Your little atheist charge is cute but it has nothing to do with the question at hand. I, just like the good practicing Catholic, am looking at this strictly from a constitutional standpoint.

What does the constitution have to do with another statue being voted down? Covering the cross can only be justified via the establishment clause and only pertains to that cross. Had any other religious icon existed, it would have been covered as well.
If the suit is based on the park service deciding which religious symbols are appropriate and which ones aren't, then it is absolutely material to the ruling. You are way off base (or don't understand what is being litigated) if you think any kind of ruling that takes the cross down is going to set a precedence at other parks that want to put a cross up. If the cross is ordered to be taken down then the precedence is the park service can't allow one religious symbol to be put up and not another. I honestly don't care, leave the cross up...but you can't deny the Buddhists the same right.

If this is true, then the ruling is that anyone can fund and erect any suitable and tasteful monument in the park. Not that one has to be covered or taken down.
Click to expand...
Again, the park making a decision gave the ACLU standing, where none existed prior to pursue the suit. It had nothing to do with the ruling. Had someone been able to sue for another reason, then the same outcome would have resulted.
 
#45
#45
BigPapaVol said:
What does the constitution have to do with another statue being voted down? Covering the cross can only be justified via the establishment clause and only pertains to that cross. Had any other religious icon existed, it would have been covered as well.
Click to expand...

This is the crux of our disagreement. I'm saying had another religious icon existed, or the buddhist one been allowed, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
 
#46
#46
rjd970 said:
This is the crux of our disagreement. I'm saying had another religious icon existed, or the buddhist one been allowed, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Click to expand...
that might be right, because nobody would have had standing to bring the suit. Regardless, once the suit was brought, the decision was about non-establishment solely.
 
#47
#47
BigPapaVol said:
that might be right, because nobody would have had standing to bring the suit. Regardless, once the suit was brought, the decision was about non-establishment solely.
Click to expand...


Not to mention the fact that, even if there are other examples you can point to that a person finds objectionable, or that a person thinks is permitted in a manner inconsistent with a ruling that some other is not allowed, is not the issue before the Court.

If there are other examples a Christian might like to look at and that a Christian finds offensive, the solution is either to bring a claim on that example directly under the same argument, or, if there is a ruling amenable to it, to bring one based on an equal protection claim.

Bottom line: Existence of other symbols does not affect correctness of rule as applied to this one.
 
#49
#49
rjd, this cross was there prior to the land being owned by the government. The government did not allow it to be built afterwards. The buddhist symbol was proposed after the land was owned by the government, which is a huge difference. It is a symbol of the sacrifices made by one man's fallen brothers during war.
 
Last edited:
#50
#50
No branches of Christianity?

Catholic and then Espiscopal, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran.......
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top