![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
Clicky!
The details appear to be: There's this cross in the park, erected to honor war dead. Religious services are held at this cross. The park officials have refused to let other religious groups put their own memorials at the site. In a deal that sounds shady even to type out, that little patch of land was sold on the condition that the memorial be kept up - if the memorial comes down, it's again part of the national park, so it's like this little patch of technically private land in the middle of a public park, like that makes all the difference.
The comments contain the normal amounts of fail. And once again, I will dredge through the comments to drag them up here and tell you all how annoyingly wrong they are. Truly, I deserve a medal.
In the interests of saving time, I'm going to just list major categories of fail and only show one or two relevant comments from each category.
The Arlington National Cemetery argument
Besides, does not the military put crosses, Star of David, Crescent, etc. on tombstones of fallen soldiers (to identify their faith)? Is someone going to suggest the tombstones be scraped blank?
Well, let's see. Tombstones? Monuments to individuals whose stated beliefs are known. This? Monument where we assume everybody remembered is Christian. Tombstones? Allow a variety of religious symbols. This? Doesn't - and adding a variety was refused. Tombstones? Not that big. This? Freakin' huge!
Yes, they're exactly the same. You get a gold star!
The It Doesn't Matter argument
What a load of rubbish. This cross erected to veterans has been there 70 years. Don't you guys have more important things to worry about in the U.S.Leave the bloody thing there.
If it doesn't matter, why do you care one way or another? I suggest that it *does* matter, and this discussion is proof of it.
Nonsense ... the government no longer owns the land in question. The court has better things to do than work on a case that has already been resolved by the fair exchange of land. This case should have been dismissed.
This suggests that loopholes are there to be exploited as WELL as that the whole case is totally meaningless.
The Taliban argument
It was about a decade ago that the world showed its general condemnation of the Taliban for destroying historical buddhist sculptures carved into the mountain sides in Afghanistan. Although Afghanistan is largely muslim it was destroying a part of its history in part to deny its buddhist past.
Well, for one thing, this cross isn't an ancient work of art. 70 years is less than a lot of people's lifetimes, so let's not even go there.
For another, there was another option: Put up more than one memorial. Except that didn't... uh... happen. Gee, I wonder why?
The "The ACLU SUCKS!!!!!!" argument
The American Criminal Liberties Union should spend more time, energy and money on their more worthwhile projects, like attacking civic Christmas displays, defending sex offenders, protecting internet spamming, and defending the rights of those who choose to wear their pants low enough to expose their underwear or buttocks.
Note how artfully he trivialized the issue.
I believe that the intent was that the government could not dictate religion not that religion couldn't be evident. It's time for people to stand up against the atheists championed by the ACLU. Maybe the ACLU should be concerned with my rights, such as owning a gun, that are being threatened. Maybe that's just not left-wing enough!
Yes, because the ALCU has never worked tirelessly to defend the rights of Christians.
The Crosses aren't RELIGION argument
Typically the NYT gets it wrong. A cross on park land is no more establishing religion than is a Christmas tree in a classroom. And estalishing a state religion is what the constituiton forbades. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" A concrete cross is not the establishment of religion.
Her tune would change if it were a star and crescent on public land, I tell you.
Is a cross made of two pieces of wood necessarily and only a symbol of Christianity? Might it just be a symbol?
Yes, but a symbol of what, exactly? When you see a huge-ass cross, what do you think? Do you think "Huh, some wood in a t shape" or do you think "Gosh, a cross!"? Be honest now. This is for posterity.
That the cross is associated with Christianity due to the historical assertion that Jesus was crucified is merely happenstance
This argument insults my intelligence. I shudder to think what Christians think of it.
The "But Only Christians DO Matter!" argument
Allowing only a cross to stand over the memorial sends a message to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and others that their sacrifices, and their family members’ sacrifices, are not appreciated or mourned."
This is a wild guess, but Veterans of Foreign Wars erected this cross in 1934 probably because most of the fallen US soldiers up until 1934 were Christians. It seems far stretched to think that they placed the cross to belittle the sacrifices of soldiers of other faiths. If members of Veterans of Foreign Wars were mostly Buddhists, they probably would have placed a Buddhist shrine. Up until 1934, how many Buddhists died fighting for US? The refusal of the Buddhist permit in 1999 by the National Park Service was probably prompted by the fact that 65 years later there is a gazillion religions that would also want to place their shrine in the same park. If the permit was denied in 1934, then there might be an argument. Just because times have changed (for better or for worse) in the last 65 years, let's not disrespect our fallen heros by distorting reality.
There were almost certainly Jewish and atheist soldiers back then, and probably soldiers from some other religions as well.
Regardless, the cross has been replaced since then. The memorial is for fallen soldiers - not just fallen Christian soldiers or fallen soldiers before 1934. And while the concern for the past is touching (we'll "distort reality" by altering the monument?), we're not LIVING in the past. I hate that "Let's not judge the past by our standards!" argument sometimes. It's all well and good when the past is in the past, but when it's here and now, guess what? I'm allowed to judge what's going on here and now by my standards. And my standards say that this ain't right today.
As far as a "gazillion religions also want to place their shrine in the park", well, that's the can of worms that was opened when the cross went there and disrupted the beauty of nature.
...Other religious symbols would only cause visual clutter and confuse to original intent and message.
I see. One religious symbol is a "poignant symbol of their sacrifice", but more than one is "visual clutter and confusion".
Keeping the cross does not say to Jews or Muslims that we do not honor your war dead. It says we honor your war dead according to the beliefs most Americans hold sacred.
You honor Jews by putting up a Christian cross. People, you can't make this shit up!
Those who want to destroy the Christian foundation of America will destroy the country they live in...do they love America or want it destroyed?
You're another twit.
The "Tyranny of the Majority? What's that?" argument
Last time I checked a democracy is a place where the majority opinion is respected. What a pity that the entire country must constantly bow down to the "feelings" of the very vocal few. I'm not saying that the minority opinion should be ignored - but can someone tell me who is hurt by a cross? What is so offensive to an atheist about Christianity? Perhaps it hurts their feelings? Compels them that they might be wrong?
Yeah, you're an idiot. It's exactly your words that are offensive. That's what MAKES state-endorsement of your religion offensive.
The details appear to be: There's this cross in the park, erected to honor war dead. Religious services are held at this cross. The park officials have refused to let other religious groups put their own memorials at the site. In a deal that sounds shady even to type out, that little patch of land was sold on the condition that the memorial be kept up - if the memorial comes down, it's again part of the national park, so it's like this little patch of technically private land in the middle of a public park, like that makes all the difference.
The comments contain the normal amounts of fail. And once again, I will dredge through the comments to drag them up here and tell you all how annoyingly wrong they are. Truly, I deserve a medal.
In the interests of saving time, I'm going to just list major categories of fail and only show one or two relevant comments from each category.
The Arlington National Cemetery argument
Besides, does not the military put crosses, Star of David, Crescent, etc. on tombstones of fallen soldiers (to identify their faith)? Is someone going to suggest the tombstones be scraped blank?
Well, let's see. Tombstones? Monuments to individuals whose stated beliefs are known. This? Monument where we assume everybody remembered is Christian. Tombstones? Allow a variety of religious symbols. This? Doesn't - and adding a variety was refused. Tombstones? Not that big. This? Freakin' huge!
Yes, they're exactly the same. You get a gold star!
The It Doesn't Matter argument
What a load of rubbish. This cross erected to veterans has been there 70 years. Don't you guys have more important things to worry about in the U.S.Leave the bloody thing there.
If it doesn't matter, why do you care one way or another? I suggest that it *does* matter, and this discussion is proof of it.
Nonsense ... the government no longer owns the land in question. The court has better things to do than work on a case that has already been resolved by the fair exchange of land. This case should have been dismissed.
This suggests that loopholes are there to be exploited as WELL as that the whole case is totally meaningless.
The Taliban argument
It was about a decade ago that the world showed its general condemnation of the Taliban for destroying historical buddhist sculptures carved into the mountain sides in Afghanistan. Although Afghanistan is largely muslim it was destroying a part of its history in part to deny its buddhist past.
Well, for one thing, this cross isn't an ancient work of art. 70 years is less than a lot of people's lifetimes, so let's not even go there.
For another, there was another option: Put up more than one memorial. Except that didn't... uh... happen. Gee, I wonder why?
The "The ACLU SUCKS!!!!!!" argument
The American Criminal Liberties Union should spend more time, energy and money on their more worthwhile projects, like attacking civic Christmas displays, defending sex offenders, protecting internet spamming, and defending the rights of those who choose to wear their pants low enough to expose their underwear or buttocks.
Note how artfully he trivialized the issue.
I believe that the intent was that the government could not dictate religion not that religion couldn't be evident. It's time for people to stand up against the atheists championed by the ACLU. Maybe the ACLU should be concerned with my rights, such as owning a gun, that are being threatened. Maybe that's just not left-wing enough!
Yes, because the ALCU has never worked tirelessly to defend the rights of Christians.
The Crosses aren't RELIGION argument
Typically the NYT gets it wrong. A cross on park land is no more establishing religion than is a Christmas tree in a classroom. And estalishing a state religion is what the constituiton forbades. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" A concrete cross is not the establishment of religion.
Her tune would change if it were a star and crescent on public land, I tell you.
Is a cross made of two pieces of wood necessarily and only a symbol of Christianity? Might it just be a symbol?
Yes, but a symbol of what, exactly? When you see a huge-ass cross, what do you think? Do you think "Huh, some wood in a t shape" or do you think "Gosh, a cross!"? Be honest now. This is for posterity.
That the cross is associated with Christianity due to the historical assertion that Jesus was crucified is merely happenstance
This argument insults my intelligence. I shudder to think what Christians think of it.
The "But Only Christians DO Matter!" argument
Allowing only a cross to stand over the memorial sends a message to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and others that their sacrifices, and their family members’ sacrifices, are not appreciated or mourned."
This is a wild guess, but Veterans of Foreign Wars erected this cross in 1934 probably because most of the fallen US soldiers up until 1934 were Christians. It seems far stretched to think that they placed the cross to belittle the sacrifices of soldiers of other faiths. If members of Veterans of Foreign Wars were mostly Buddhists, they probably would have placed a Buddhist shrine. Up until 1934, how many Buddhists died fighting for US? The refusal of the Buddhist permit in 1999 by the National Park Service was probably prompted by the fact that 65 years later there is a gazillion religions that would also want to place their shrine in the same park. If the permit was denied in 1934, then there might be an argument. Just because times have changed (for better or for worse) in the last 65 years, let's not disrespect our fallen heros by distorting reality.
There were almost certainly Jewish and atheist soldiers back then, and probably soldiers from some other religions as well.
Regardless, the cross has been replaced since then. The memorial is for fallen soldiers - not just fallen Christian soldiers or fallen soldiers before 1934. And while the concern for the past is touching (we'll "distort reality" by altering the monument?), we're not LIVING in the past. I hate that "Let's not judge the past by our standards!" argument sometimes. It's all well and good when the past is in the past, but when it's here and now, guess what? I'm allowed to judge what's going on here and now by my standards. And my standards say that this ain't right today.
As far as a "gazillion religions also want to place their shrine in the park", well, that's the can of worms that was opened when the cross went there and disrupted the beauty of nature.
...Other religious symbols would only cause visual clutter and confuse to original intent and message.
I see. One religious symbol is a "poignant symbol of their sacrifice", but more than one is "visual clutter and confusion".
Keeping the cross does not say to Jews or Muslims that we do not honor your war dead. It says we honor your war dead according to the beliefs most Americans hold sacred.
You honor Jews by putting up a Christian cross. People, you can't make this shit up!
Those who want to destroy the Christian foundation of America will destroy the country they live in...do they love America or want it destroyed?
You're another twit.
The "Tyranny of the Majority? What's that?" argument
Last time I checked a democracy is a place where the majority opinion is respected. What a pity that the entire country must constantly bow down to the "feelings" of the very vocal few. I'm not saying that the minority opinion should be ignored - but can someone tell me who is hurt by a cross? What is so offensive to an atheist about Christianity? Perhaps it hurts their feelings? Compels them that they might be wrong?
Yeah, you're an idiot. It's exactly your words that are offensive. That's what MAKES state-endorsement of your religion offensive.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-10-11 10:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-11 10:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-11 10:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-11 10:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-13 01:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-13 01:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-13 03:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-13 03:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-11 11:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-12 01:43 pm (UTC)