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

[Zeebadee]

No.


A lot. It asks for tolerance and the inclusion of those dead not represented by a Christian symbol.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can the dead grant tolerance and inclusion?

[Apeman81]

Usual intolerant blather from those pitiful few who just can't stand the thought or sight of anything that resembles religion, especially Christian religion.

If a cross offends you as a memorial symbol. I urge you examine your reasoning.

Because its a "Christian" symbol?

So what, if a group of marines want to use a "Christian" symbol to honor their fallen brothers, why the hell should anyone else give rat's ass?

Is anyone denying any other symbol be used by any other group?

Has the base shut down chapel services for any other faith?

Are marines directed to pray to the crosses?

The fact is that no one is being forced to do anything more than allow someone to erect a cross in memorial of their dead brothers in arms.

Imagine that! Being asked to tolerate something.

[Jack]

Can the dead grant tolerance and inclusion?

So what, if a group of marines want to use a "Christian" symbol to honor their fallen brothers, why the hell should anyone else give rat's ass?

I presume they have families and loved ones who might be bothered by the use of a Christian symbol to "honor" their dead who may have been Jews, Muslims or even non-believers. Why not use a neutral symbol, like the insignia of the Marine Corps? We can be pretty sure all the fallen, be they Christian, Jew or atheist, were all Marines. That would be a much more fitting symbol to use.

[hensatri]

“So what, if a group of marines want to use a "Christian" symbol to honor their fallen brothers, why the hell should anyone else give rat's ass?”

Well, as long as the dead men are also Christians I suppose I don’t mind this at all. Now I would mind very much is someone memorialized the sacrifice of the dead with a religious symbol that violated the beliefs of the dead. That is a bit sacrilegious isn’t it? The fact that this has been stated as being a general memorial to fallen marines means that Christian symbolism is being branded onto the sacrifice of many different people of many different faiths. That’s a bit insulting isn’t it?
So that is why it is insulting.
Now if this was being done on private ground then it would still be insulting, but it wouldn’t be illegal. That fact that it’s on government ground is what makes it unconstitutional as a very clear violation of the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.
So it is insulting and illegal…..isn’t that a good enough reason to give at least a rat’s ass?

“Is anyone denying any other symbol be used by any other group?”
Yes. The exact same moral and legal issues would exist if a group of Muslims tried to erect the same monument with Islamic imagery. In fact I believe the outrage would be even worse. Now most other religious groups usually don’t pull stunts like this in the US, so it doesn’t make news as often.

“Has the base shut down chapel services for any other faith?”
Chapel services haven’t been shut down for any faith. It is generally agreed that in the military if you are going to go die for your country you deserve the right to have that absolution of whatever God you worship. This is why we permit chapels and chaplains in the armed services. Where have you heard of a military chapel being shut down? Please provide a source.

“Are marines directed to pray to the crosses?”
No…that would be an even bigger problem.

“Imagine that! Being asked to tolerate something.”
Allowing an aggressive and dominant religious majority to violate the constitution in an act of assumed privilege and ownership is NOT tolerance, that is submission. I think you have to two confused.

[Yarn]

The issue is trivial either way.

[Apeman81]

I presume they have families and loved ones who might be bothered by the use of a Christian symbol to "honor" their dead who may have been Jews, Muslims or even non-believers. Why not use a neutral symbol, like the insignia of the Marine Corps? We can be pretty sure all the fallen, be they Christian, Jew or atheist, were all Marines. That would be a much more fitting symbol to use.

How about we stop presuming what other might feel and let the families of the fallen soldiers take care of their objections.

But of course, they haven't made any objections.

[Apeman81]

“So what, if a group of marines want to use a "Christian" symbol to honor their fallen brothers, why the hell should anyone else give rat's ass?”

Well, as long as the dead men are also Christians I suppose I don’t mind this at all. Now I would mind very much is someone memorialized the sacrifice of the dead with a religious symbol that violated the beliefs of the dead. That is a bit sacrilegious isn’t it? The fact that this has been stated as being a general memorial to fallen marines means that Christian symbolism is being branded onto the sacrifice of many different people of many different faiths. That’s a bit insulting isn’t it?
So that is why it is insulting.
Now if this was being done on private ground then it would still be insulting, but it wouldn’t be illegal. That fact that it’s on government ground is what makes it unconstitutional as a very clear violation of the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.
So it is insulting and illegal…..isn’t that a good enough reason to give at least a rat’s ass?

“Is anyone denying any other symbol be used by any other group?”
Yes. The exact same moral and legal issues would exist if a group of Muslims tried to erect the same monument with Islamic imagery. In fact I believe the outrage would be even worse. Now most other religious groups usually don’t pull stunts like this in the US, so it doesn’t make news as often.

“Has the base shut down chapel services for any other faith?”
Chapel services haven’t been shut down for any faith. It is generally agreed that in the military if you are going to go die for your country you deserve the right to have that absolution of whatever God you worship. This is why we permit chapels and chaplains in the armed services. Where have you heard of a military chapel being shut down? Please provide a source.

“Are marines directed to pray to the crosses?”
No…that would be an even bigger problem.

“Imagine that! Being asked to tolerate something.”
Allowing an aggressive and dominant religious majority to violate the constitution in an act of assumed privilege and ownership is NOT tolerance, that is submission. I think you have to two confused.

There is no establishment of religion involved in putting up a cross. No violation of the constitution involved.

As far as the "symbolism" in use, how about you sit back and stop whining and let the family of the fallen launch any protest if they don't like the symbol.

But they seem to be unhelpfully, for your point of view, silent.

[hensatri]

Le sigh....

As I said, if this was a memorial to very specific soldiers, who were Christians, on private ground, I would have no problem.

You seem to be defending an imaginary memorial that is not the one we are talking about, but rather the one you would like it to be. THIS memorial is a tribute to fallen marines, not 4 or 5 specific marines, but marines in general. Unless you are prepared to say that all marines are protestant Christians, then yes, having the imagery of a religion in violation of your own raised in honor of your sacrifice is something none of us would like to see done upon our death, and therefore it is something none of us should do to others. Why is this so hard to understand? And since this is a memorial to fallen Marines, as in a military corps comprised of many many people, the families are protesting. Not all of them, but I am sure that amongst the protesters are at least some family and friends of marines. I would imagine those people have the decency not to pretend that any of this is about their relation to the dead, but are defending the general principle that you should not brand the sacrifice of a dead Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, or defender of secularity, with a cross.

And if you don’t think this is a violation of the First amendment then I suggest you study precedent on the issue. These exact kinds of memorials have been ruled unconstitutional many times. Not to mention that the constitution specifically mentions “respecting an establishment of religion.”

If you as me, erecting a Christian Shrine on federal land is most certainly granting a measure of respect to an establishment of religion…oh and coincidentally the Supreme Court agrees.

[The Decider]

Interestingly, Obama's Department of Justice recently defended a large cross erected on public property. In its legal brief, the DOJ argued that ""What matters for purposes of the Establishment Clause is the government's conduct, and the government's acquisition and management of the Memorial have been secular rather than religious in nature."

In this case, a few Marines rather than the "government" in general erected crosses to memorialize their dead brothers. Their intent from all indications was secular, not religious.

Now, Obama's DOJ could be wrong. Lord knows conservatives think so on other issues. However, its defense of a cross on public property at least suggests that the separation clause has it limits, or at the very least a reasonable legal argument exists to defend that position.

Personally, I would prefer that Marines or any other government employee not dabble in religious imagery on taxpayer property even if nobody publicly complains. Just because something may be technically constitutional doesn't make it a good idea. Nor does it follow that no public opposition to the crosses means there is no opposition. Fear of retribution in the Marine's tight knit society may preclude opponents from speaking up. Bullying, or the fear of bullying, has long kept non-Christian opponents of religious symbols on public property quiet in our nation's Christian-dominant history.

Obama Justice Department Defends Cross on Public Property

[Jack]

Just because something may be technically constitutional doesn't make it a good idea.

While I agree with you the fact that this practice has been adjudicated to be constitutional eliminates the primary objection I have to it.

[hensatri]

Interestingly, Obama's Department of Justice recently defended a large cross erected on public property. In its legal brief, the DOJ argued that ""What matters for purposes of the Establishment Clause is the government's conduct, and the government's acquisition and management of the Memorial have been secular rather than religious in nature."

In this case, a few Marines rather than the "government" in general erected crosses to memorialize their dead brothers. Their intent from all indications was secular, not religious.

Now, Obama's DOJ could be wrong. Lord knows conservatives think so on other issues. However, its defense of a cross on public property at least suggests that the separation clause has it limits, or at the very least a reasonable legal argument exists to defend that position.

Personally, I would prefer that Marines or any other government employee not dabble in religious imagery on taxpayer property even if nobody publicly complains. Just because something may be technically constitutional doesn't make it a good idea. Nor does it follow that no public opposition to the crosses means there is no opposition. Fear of retribution in the Marine's tight knit society may preclude opponents from speaking up. Bullying, or the fear of bullying, has long kept non-Christian opponents of religious symbols on public property quiet in our nation's Christian-dominant history.

Obama Justice Department Defends Cross on Public Property

I do agree that a site bearing a religious symbol does not mean that government defense or support of that site is an inherent violation of the establishment clause.

For example, history and tradition are important to us, and if the government were to, say annex the first cathedral erected in Philly and turn it into a museum dedicated to the religious and social customs of our immigrant ancestors, then that would be a location stuffed to the gills with religious imagery, that would still certainly be a secular. A historic courthouse adorned with a century old 10 commandments display should not be defaced. Such a location is as valuable, if not more valuable, historically and culturally than it is religiously.

Here is why I don't believe that this memorial being discussed is secular:

When secular military groups offered to preserve the memorial, with the condition that the crosses be replaced with secular shrines, the group that put up the memorial stuck their feet in the ground and said no. It had to be crosses. Not crosses or nothing, but crosses period. It could not be plaques, stones with engraved names and flower wreaths, rifles in the ground with helmets on them, or any other perfectly reasonable secular symbol, it had to be Christian symbol, and any proposition to contrary was met with refusal.

The fact that those who erected the memorial acted in this way indicates to me that they are not content to have a secular memorial, it has to be quite specifically a Christian memorial, and any attempt to secularize it is unacceptable.

That seems to be utterly conclusive evidence that this memorial is not secular in intent.

[The Decider]

I do agree that a site bearing a religious symbol does not mean that government defense or support of that site is an inherent violation of the establishment clause.

For example, history and tradition are important to us, and if the government were to, say annex the first cathedral erected in Philly and turn it into a museum dedicated to the religious and social customs of our immigrant ancestors, then that would be a location stuffed to the gills with religious imagery, that would still certainly be a secular. A historic courthouse adorned with a century old 10 commandments display should not be defaced. Such a location is as valuable, if not more valuable, historically and culturally than it is religiously.

Here is why I don't believe that this memorial being discussed is secular:

When secular military groups offered to preserve the memorial, with the condition that the crosses be replaced with secular shrines, the group that put up the memorial stuck their feet in the ground and said no. It had to be crosses. Not crosses or nothing, but crosses period. It could not be plaques, stones with engraved names and flower wreaths, rifles in the ground with helmets on them, or any other perfectly reasonable secular symbol, it had to be Christian symbol, and any proposition to contrary was met with refusal.

The fact that those who erected the memorial acted in this way indicates to me that they are not content to have a secular memorial, it has to be quite specifically a Christian memorial, and any attempt to secularize it is unacceptable.

That seems to be utterly conclusive evidence that this memorial is not secular in intent.

This additional information is a game changer. Giving the memorial a specifically Christian identity would, it seems to me, violate the US Constitution. Although the individual marines do not make government policy, the military's acquiescence to the shrine on public property, through inaction if not outright approval, favors one religion over another. And my earlier point about lack of vocal religious opposition stands--silence is not acceptance, especially in a tight-knit group like the Marines. Make waves in the Marines and you might get the equivalent of Jack Nicholson's informal "Code Red." Hollywood fantasy perhaps, but the Marines rarely tolerate protest within its ranks, at least that's my impression. But then, what do I know about military culture--I voted for the Non (Un) American Kenyan Muslim military hater, Barack Obama (and will do so again). 'Nuff said.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-18/u...arker?_s=PM:US