Marines fight to protect crosses at Camp Pendleton as atheist groups seek removal

[arX]

Maybe people should drop their hang-ups and just accept that the cross symbolizes death and not Christianity?

To my knowledge, the crescent doesn't symbolize death.

Isn't it presumptuous to think that all the "lives lost in the war on terror" were Christian or even religious? Would a Jew or Muslim consider a cross to be an appropriate marker honoring their loved ones? Even Arlington Cemetery doesn't put a cross on every gravestone. The image is appropriate to the beliefs of the deceased service person.

A product of political correctness.

The crosses in the OP weren't designated to a specific person.

"Maybe a crescent should also have been erected if it's over lives lost in the wars" is in reference to the vast, innocent Muslim lives that were lost during the wars because, for them, a cross is certainly not a symbol of death. Neither really is a crescent, but it's just to make the above point that I now realise Jack has also made (sorry, missed it) which seems to have flew right over your head.

[ruksak]

"Maybe a crescent should also have been erected if it's over lives lost in the wars" is in reference to the vast, innocent Muslim lives that were lost during the wars because, for them, a cross is certainly not a symbol of death. Neither really is a crescent, but it's just to make the above point that I now realise Jack has also made (sorry, missed it) which seems to have flew right over your head.

I knew what he was referencing. That much was obvious.

The crescent is a very specific symbol while the cross is dynamic.

[ruksak]

His death on the cross is only significant in light of his resurrection. A cross on a grave doesn't commemorate the person's death but the hope of a future eternal life with god.

Thats what it means to you. Thats what it means to religious fucks and simpletons who get bird shit in their eyes while looking to the heavens.

A 5 year old child, A CHILD, whom has no exposure to religion could recognize that symbol as a mark of death.

You know what it is. You know the deal. But you choose to lash out because of what else it means. Yours is a pretend stance of ignorance.

[Jack]

You know what it is. You know the deal. But you choose to lash out because of what else it means. Yours is a pretend stance of ignorance.

This sentence contraindicates a future in psychiatry and/or mind-reading.

[hensatri]

Maybe people should drop their hang-ups and just accept that the cross symbolizes death and not Christianity?

To my knowledge, the crescent doesn't symbolize death.

I think your instant association of th cross with death is indicative of how deep the problem runs. The fact is that people all over the world stretching back into the oldest antiquity had symbols of their religion on their graves. This is not a unique thing to us. And not all of these graves bore crosses. Stars, circles, ibises, cornucopias, animal symbols, eyes, the sun, ect. Ect. Ect.

I agree that when we think graveyard, or memorial of the fallen, we envision crosses, but only because for so many centuries in the west, almost everyone was Christian, so you wouldn't put anything other than a cross. I guarantee in Japan or Paupau New Guinea the cross isn't nearly as associated with death.

So you flippant association of a religion specific symbol with the fallen demonstrates just how deep the river runs against secularism, and why raising awareness is so important.

[The Decider]

A 5 year old child, A CHILD, whom has no exposure to religion could recognize that symbol as a mark of death.

But does a 5 year old child also know that Arlington Cemetery designates its dead with Stars of David, Crescents, and other symbols that bear little resemblance to the Cross? The military has adopted a variety of symbols to signify a dead person. They set the standard, they should live by it.

[hensatri]

A thing worth remembering here is that these were not graves. This is a general memorial to fallen comrades. Government land or no, I think it would be sacrosanct to tell a person they could not have the symbol of their religion on their grave. That is nearly a blasphemy against humanism. So if these were graves, and every man buried there were Christian, then the crosses, and more importantly the defense of the crosses, would be valid. In fact if these were graves, then the cross imagry would never have been opposed in the first place.

But this is not a grave. This is a shrine to fallen brethren, and apparently, quite explicitly, a shrine only to fallen Christian brethren. Or if non-christian soldiers are memorialized here, then the erectors of the memorial are perfectly content to brand them with Christianity.

[ruksak]

A thing worth remembering here is that these were not graves. This is a general memorial to fallen comrades.

So tear them down. That'll honor the fallen, right?

How many monuments have been erected by atheists? How much time, effort and money do these groups place toward something constructive?

Stop being so sensitive, people.

How about atheists do something constructive rather than destructive?

[hensatri]

So tear them down. That'll honor the fallen, right?

How many monuments have been erected by atheists? How much time, effort and money do these groups place toward something constructive?

Jews should be able to erect their own symbolism in such regard. So should any other demographic, so long as the imagery is respectful. Stop being so sensitive, people.

How about atheists do something constructive rather than destructive?

I believe the Atheist in the Military group that filed the official complain suggested that the crosses be replaced with secular symbols. They weren't wanting the memorial destroyed, they just wanted it to be secular, which is should be. The fact that the people who erected the memorial so strongly clung to the crosses showed us that it wasn't just a general memorial to the dead to them, it was quite specifically a Christian memorial, and a Christian memorial to dead soldiers of a secular army is....well it's insulting.

And yes, most Atheist activism is against an established standard, but that goes without saying doesn’t it? It’s a counter-culture movement. The very nature of a movement that is against a status-quo is that the movement will attack that status-quo. It would be silly and pointless otherwise wouldn’t it? If you are an activist in a secular group, who is promoting the separation of church and state, and you go build homes for the poor, work at a soup kitchen, or adopt a street…well ok that’s good and all…but what does that have to do with the point of the movement?
The New Atheism movement only exists because Christian Privilege is so ubiquitous in our country, and violations of the separation of church and state run rampant. If it weren’t for these transgressions the movement wouldn’t even exist. The entire point of even having the organizations is to spread awareness and fix this problem.
Asking Atheists why they can’t do something more constructive is like asking a suffragette why she can’t do anything other than complain about the right to vote. The answer should be obvious.

[lsbskins1]

Tolerance involves mutual respect. Demanding that dominant iconography be accepted without complaint is not reflective of a tolerant attitude. I, too, agree that an individual grave that displays the religious iconography of the person contained within the grave is in no way objectionable. If you want a cross for, or on, your head stone, that is your right. It is an individual expression of individual belief. Same idea for a Star of David, a crescent moon or a carved representation of the Buddha. The belief that the cross is a universal symbol of death is erroneous. It might be an obvious symbol to a five year old Christian child who has been going to church with his parents all of his life, but not for a 5 year old from another religious tradition. Insisting that the crosses must stay is not an act of inclusion or tolerance. It is an act of dominance.

[ruksak]

It's just two sticks.

Why do you guys give a shit? Thats what I can't figure.

There's no forced indoctrination here. No ideas being conveyed. Just two sticks.

As a person whom is generally opposed to religious pervasiveness, I'm really curious.....why do you care?

[hensatri]

The more appropriate question is "Why do they care?" Of course I am refering to the people who are fighting to keep the crosses up.

They care because they think it is appropriate to use a Christian symbol to memorialise dead soldiers. They care because, in their mind, their right to brand the military sacrifice of US citizens as an explicitly Christian sacrifice, to be memorialised in a Christian way, over rides the separation of Church and State, and the mandated secularity of US government.

If THEY didn't care, I wouldn't care. It is was just the way they chose to mark the memorial at the time, and the two sticks carried no particular significance to them, then this wouldn't be an issue. It is an issue to me because it is an issue to them. It is not "just two sticks" to me because it is not "just two sticks" to them.

To take the concept of the sacrifice of fallen soldiers, and apply significant Christian branding to that, is a direct insult to secular and humanistic values. It violates secular principles for obvious reason, and it is a violation of basic humanism because these people have the presumption to attribute a Christian association to these citizens, of varying religious backgrounds, after they've died. I say it again, if secularism and humanism CAN be blasphemed against, then that is exactly what we are seeing here.

So, in summary, if it was really, "just two sticks" I wouldn't care....at all. But I think we all know it's not JUST two sticks. If it were then these people wouldn't be defending it the way they are. No, is a particular religion, hiking it's leg like a dog, and marking the dead as their own territory.