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

[ruksak]

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 you think it blasphemous to your own belief system when people tie two sticks together in memorandum?

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.

No....a cross is just two sticks. Your protestations make it something that it's not.

No, is a particular religion, hiking it's leg like a dog, and marking the dead as their own territory.

Thats rather obtuse. Again....so what? Why do you care? As I mentioned before, I typically abhor religion, but I don't care if they put crosses, stars, crescents...etc here and there to memorialize in a manner befitting their own customs. Why so intolerant? Why so hateful of a silly custom? Why would you give a fuck?

[Jack]

Why so intolerant?

I fail to read intolerance in his reply. I fail to see tolerance for all religions and those with no religion in the position that Christian symbols are appropriate for a memorial to those not all of whom may be Christian.

Why so hateful of a silly custom?

I can't imagine where one perceives hate in hensatri's comment. This unfounded accusation is essentially an ad hom.

Why would you give a fuck?

Well, duh, because this is a debate forum and he obviously has an opinion on the topic. One might as well ask if you consider this a "silly custom" why you give a fuck to defend it.

[ruksak]

Well, duh, because this is a debate forum and he obviously has an opinion on the topic. One might as well ask if you consider this a "silly custom" why you give a fuck to defend it.

The question was more of a general nature, not specifically aimed at any individual. I have read many passionate atheist responses on Volconvo over the years concerning this matter, relaying the impression that many people truly "give a fuck".

I can't imagine where one perceives hate in hensatri's comment. This unfounded accusation is essentially an ad hom.

The imagery of erecting these crosses being akin to a dog urinating on the dead as a dominance display seemed a trite hateful to me.

I fail to read intolerance in his reply. I fail to see tolerance for all religions and those with no religion in the position that Christian symbols are appropriate for a memorial to those not all of whom may be Christian.

Political correctness attempts to destroy individuality. Just let religious people practice their arcane memorial practices and go about your lives.

I'm not sure how you could dispute the heavy air of intolerance when we are discussing a lack of tolerance for other peoples customs?

[Jack]

The imagery of erecting these crosses being akin to a dog urinating on the dead as a dominance display seemed a trite hateful to me.

I believe from reading it that it was posted as an analogy for marking territory.

Just let religious people practice their arcane memorial practices and go about your lives.

In other words allow them to do whatever they want, even violate the Constitution, and refrain from objecting. Allowing the religious freedom not granted to the non-religious seems to me to be a matter of political correctness.

I'm not sure how you could dispute the heavy air of intolerance when we are discussing a lack of tolerance for other peoples customs?

Such as Christian's intolerance for anyone's customs and beliefs but their own?

[ruksak]

I believe from reading it that it was posted as an analogy for marking territory.

Either way, it seemed a bit judgmental of the actual intent. To be clear, I think hensatri is an excellent poster with well thought out posts.

In other words allow them to do whatever they want, even violate the Constitution, and refrain from objecting.

The actual act in the OP seems tangential to the separation of church and state. If our military sends religious people to their death, effectively ending their lives, than I see no reason why people whom share their views, fellow soldiers, cannot honor their deaths according to their customs.

Such as Christian's intolerance for anyone's customs and beliefs but their own?

Two wrongs don't make a right, does it? I'm not suggesting that we sit back and let them run rampant with the constant reminders that this nation is dominated by people whom believe in spectral omnipotence. I believe we should pick our battles when combating Christians overbearing influence on our society.

[Jack]

The actual act in the OP seems tangential to the separation of church and state.

You don't see the erection of religious icons on federal property as a violation of the establishment clause?

I believe we should pick our battles when combating Christians overbearing influence on our society.

I believe there are enough of us to cover all the Constitutional violations adequately. We don't all have to engage in every incident.

[hensatri]

Just to be clear, I do not disapprove of using religious imagery on the graves of specific soldiers, even in federal cemeteries. Freedom of religion is an important part of this country. Freedom to practice how, where, and when you wish, as long as you not transgressing against the rights of others, is a vital part of what freedom means in this country.

But you CANNOT use your religion to brand the accomplishments and sacrifices of the dead, especially of the dead who fought under a secular flag. How can you not see how that is offensive? If this was on private land in some guy's field it would still be offensive, but since it happens to be on a US military base it is both offensive and unconstitutional.

Now I will not give up on this "just two sticks" point. You absolutely HAVE to be able to understand this, and I think you do, you are just being a smidge facetious. I agree that it is literaly just two sticks, but let's not be silly and pretend that a cross is "just two sticks" any more than a swaztika is "just a crooked X". Symbols represent things, and hold meanings, that is the entire purpose of a symbol.

Now I have conceded multiple times already that I can conceive of a person making a memorial, and erecting a cross, not out of deference to Christian privilege, but just out of general associated with graves and death. But the fact that they have gotten so damn vitriolic about the cross indicates, unquestionably, that it is not JUST two sticks.

Will you acknowledge the following: To the people who put up the crosses, they are just sticks, they are symbols of Christianity.

Will you acknowledge this: Given how hard they've fought to defend the crosses, we must assume that the fact that these symbols are crosses, and not some other symbol, is significant to these people that these soldiers be memorialized with specifically Christian imagery.

If you are willing to acknowledge those two things, then it should be obvious why I care as well. It should be obvious why I care that our military actions and losses are branded with a cross.

And yes...the simile of a dog marking its territory was vulgar, but very accurate.

[lsbskins1]

It it's just two sticks, let's uncross them...
Lets print an inspirational, secular message honoring sacrifice on them.
If it's just two sticks, that should be no problem.

[Zeebadee]

Insisting that the crosses must stay is not an act of inclusion or tolerance. It is an act of dominance.

You mean dominance like the insistence that they must be removed? How much "inclusion or tolerance" does that include??

[Jack]

You mean dominance like the insistence that they must be removed?

No.

How much "inclusion or tolerance" does that include??

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

[ruksak]

You don't see the erection of religious icons on federal property as a violation of the establishment clause?

No. I do not.

I believe there are enough of us to cover all the Constitutional violations adequately. We don't all have to engage in every incident.

It's not about resources or capability. We know that there are enough atheists to bitch about everything almost simultaneously. It's about how it makes atheists look in the face of ignorant rantings over a few sticks placed together at opposite angles. All this attention gives the cross the power that atheists pretend to fear.

[Jack]

It's about how it makes atheists look in the face of ignorant rantings over a few sticks placed together at opposite angles.

How we look to whom? Those who think the might of their majority allows them to do whatever they want or those who respect the Constitution and the pluralistic nature of our country? I couldn't care less how we look to the former. The secular shouldn't abandon their role as a check and balance to the religious.

Your refusal to acknowledge the symbolism of a cross doesn't erase that symbolism.