NationStates Jolt Archive

Two of these forums most ardent supporters of veterans recently decride the erection of crosses to honor soldiers killed in Iraq.

One called it "disrepectful" for anyone other than a family member to erect a cross for a fallen soldier.

The other said: "Also, how does exhibiting crosses pay respect to the wishes and beliefs of fallen soldiers of non-Christian faith?"

I agree with them. I think it is not only a violation of the First Amendment, but disrespectful when people erect giant crosses on public lands and/or with public money and claim it is a war memorial.

A cross erected over the grave of an individual soldier at his/her bequest or at the bequest of his/her family is entirely proper and different matter altogether.

EDIT:

I'm not focusing on individual crosses over an individual grave of a soldier. Obviously, that may or may not be appropriate. I think a symbol of the faith of the soldier may be appropriate if desired by the soldier and/or his/her family.

I'm talking about cross erected NOT AT GRAVESITES as a suppposed memorial to a war or veterans in general. The typical example I think of are the big-ass crosses that get erected on high points like a hill. When someone objects to it being on public lands or being paid for by public money, it is excused as a war memorial.

:rolleyes: Oh, Christ, if you don't like it, pretend it's a "t."

Well, if a family doesn't bother requesting not to have a cross erected on their loved one's grave, I really don't have a problem with it being there. On the other hand, if they DO request otherwise, I would hope that that would be respected - in fact, I would assume there's some sort of law that would prevent such a request from being legally ignored.

I think it's dependent on the context. if the soldier was well known as being a religious man, for example, I wouldn't have a problem with it in a singular instance. If, however, this particular symbology were to be used to imply that everyone under it had died for this cause or what-have-you, then we've got problems; my opinions on the matter appear to be similar to yours when public funds are used to this end.

I think it's one of the faults of a Democracy : when you give the majority unlimited rights, they get to do things like this and say it's justified because our government ostensibly represents [i]them.

EDIT:
Aldranin, while we're at it let's pretend a swastika is a poorly drawn 'x.' You can't honestly ask people to just detatch concepts from images that you've been waving around for centuries. Trying to call a spade a wheelbarrow isn't going to solve anyone's problems.

I think it's dependent on the context. if the soldier was well known as being a religious man, for example, I wouldn't have a problem with it in a singular instance. If, however, this particular symbology were to be used to imply that everyone under it had died for this cause or what-have-you, then we've got problems; my opinions on the matter appear to be similar to yours when public funds are used to this end.

I think it's one of the faults of a Democracy : when you give the majority unlimited rights, they get to do things like this and say it's justified because our government ostensibly represents [i]them.
Agreed :fluffle: :fluffle: If there is reason to believe thoes were his wishes or his family states thoes are his wishes ... then its all good (simmilar to organ donation I guess)

Did you people read my post?

I made a rather specific distinction between a single cross over a single soldier's grave with his/her and/or his/her families consent and a public war memorial erected on public lands and/or using public funds.

Hmm I voted other - it completely depends on the context, those massive graves in places like washington dc are all white crosses aren't they?

For me a memorial as a field of white crosses represents dead soldiers, not a symbol of faith.

Franco's tomb which was built by political prisoners has a giant cross on it. Yet it's a symbol that raises a huge amount of bile with spaniards, instead of the typical christian connection.

Did you people read my post?

I made a rather specific distinction between a single cross over a single soldier's grave with his/her and/or his/her families consent and a public war memorial erected on public lands and/or using public funds.
Yes that’s why I answered the way I did but I figured I would comment on it to show the difference in my opinion between the two situations I know you wanted a vote on the public land and mony and I did such

Yes that’s why I answered the way I did but I figured I would comment on it to show the difference in my opinion between the two situations I know you wanted a vote on the public land and mony and I did such

I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions about the first few posts or lumped you all together. Sorry to all of you.

I was just suprised the first couple of posts seemed to be talking about individual graves. (Which seems to be a continuing trend.)

I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions about the first few posts or lumped you all together. Sorry to all of you.

I was just suprised the first couple of posts seemed to be talking about individual graves. (Which seems to be a continuing trend.)
Lol its fine

Public money and land ... no I dont support it

If I fought for the country it would not be for the Christian god … I would not want a symbol which I do not support standing for the reason I died

They could do something classy like this
http://www.webtravels.com/iwojima/Post1little.jpg

No, crosses are not appropriate for a public memorial in the United States. They're certainly appropriate for individual graves, if the soldiers were Christian. But for a memorial to all soldiers who fought in a war, it's not appropriate for a number of reasons:

1. The soldiers who fought in the war probably were not all Christians.
2. The US is not a "Christian nation"; it's a nation with a Christian majority but a secular government that is not supposed to favor one faith over another.
3. The current administration's rhetoric notwithstanding, the US does not engage in religious crusades.
4. War is not a Christian undertaking in the first place.

There's probably more good reasons, but any one of those is sufficient to make crosses inappropriate.

That being said, I haven't actually seen a war memorial shaped like a cross. I've seen big marble slabs, I've seen pillars, I've seen cannons, I've seen that elaborate thing that is the WWII memorial in DC, but never crosses.

Did you people read my post?

I made a rather specific distinction between a single cross over a single soldier's grave with his/her and/or his/her families consent and a public war memorial erected on public lands and/or using public funds.

I agree with the poster who said "Pretend it's a 'T'." :) or 't'. Short for 'tomb.' :)

I agree with the poster who said "Pretend it's a 'T'." :) or 't'. Short for 'tomb.' :)
and I will quote melkor

EDIT:
Aldranin, while we're at it let's pretend a swastika is a poorly drawn 'x.' You can't honestly ask people to just detatch concepts from images that you've been waving around for centuries. Trying to call a spade a wheelbarrow isn't going to solve anyone's problems.

Hmm I voted other - it completely depends on the context, those massive graves in places like washington dc are all white crosses aren't they?


Actually, no. The "massive grave place" in Washington D.C. is Arlington National Cemetary, which looks like this (http://www.windycityart.com/washingtondc/dc/arlington%20cemetery.jpg). No crosses. (There are probably some crosses on specific individuals' graves, but they're not the norm.)

You're probably thinking of Flanders field, in Belgium, which looks like this (http://www.k12.nf.ca/stjosephsallgrade/images/remembrance_day/flanders_field.jpg).

And as for the original question, the only time the cross seems like an appropriate symbol for a war memorial is if those being remembered were Crusaders. Otherwise, anyone designing the memorials should stick to emblems with which ALL those memorialized could identify.

i really shoulda chosen the 3rd option. i think im gonna contradict myself

crosses are not an appropriate public war memorial.

crosses belong on graves marking the resting spot of someone who has died (if possible). they belong on the graves of christians. they should be permanent

crosses make an excellent war PROTEST however. they highlight the loss of life in a way that just talking about numbers doesnt. in my mind that makes such protests fair game for counter protests. they are not the sacred representation of our war dead. they are a political statement.

at the same time i dont think there is anything more moving than a war cemetery. going to arlington national cemetery was in some way enlightening. seeing the crosses, stars of david, and <there must have been other types but i dont remember seeing any> highlighted the sacrifices that have been made to keep our country safe and free. no "monument to the glory of war" brings that point home in the same way.

so, to contradict myself, while crosses are inappropriate in a public memorial, the graves our of war dead are the most moving war memorials we have.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GET OVER IT! THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HAS GONE WAY TO FAR. THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON THE BELIFES OF CHRISTIANITY. Wow just realized I was typing with a capslock on.

If you dont like the Cross, dont look at it.

Well, I'm anti-war AND atheist, but I think they're appropriate. Why? Simple: why not? They're not offensive, they're not ugly, they're not representing anything at odds with the sacrafice the people made (for whatever reason). A cross doesn't mean anything in itself, it's the meaning we attach to it that matters. If you're not religious, the cross is just a cross.

i really shoulda chosen the 3rd option. i think im gonna contradict myself

crosses are not an appropriate public war memorial.

crosses belong on graves marking the resting spot of someone who has died (if possible). they belong on the graves of christians. they should be permanent

crosses make an excellent war PROTEST however. they highlight the loss of life in a way that just talking about numbers doesnt. in my mind that makes such protests fair game for counter protests. they are not the sacred representation of our war dead. they are a political statement.

at the same time i dont think there is anything more moving than a war cemetery. going to arlington national cemetery was in some way enlightening. seeing the crosses, stars of david, and <there must have been other types but i dont remember seeing any> highlighted the sacrifices that have been made to keep our country safe and free. no "monument to the glory of war" brings that point home in the same way.

so, to contradict myself, while crosses are inappropriate in a public memorial, the graves our of war dead are the most moving war memorials we have.


How much of an impact is the number of graves rather then the fact that they are crosses and or stars? (that and the grounds and the setting)

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GET OVER IT! THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HAS GONE WAY TO FAR. THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON THE BELIFES OF CHRISTIANITY. Wow just realized I was typing with a capslock on.

If you dont like the Cross, dont look at it.
Lol falty claim … cat tribe is going to rip ya apart on that “founded on the beliefs of Christianity” tripe

Well fine if I die serving my country I want a memorial of a naked woman instead

Lets see if they allow that

Hmm I voted other - it completely depends on the context, those massive graves in places like washington dc are all white crosses aren't they?

For me a memorial as a field of white crosses represents dead soldiers, not a symbol of faith.

Franco's tomb which was built by political prisoners has a giant cross on it. Yet it's a symbol that raises a huge amount of bile with spaniards, instead of the typical christian connection.


As do I think of fallen soldiers when I see a field of crosses. They also have Star of David tombstones in such fields.

Two of these forums most ardent supporters of veterans recently decride the erection of crosses to honor soldiers killed in Iraq.

One called it "disrepectful" for anyone other than a family member to erect a cross for a fallen soldier.

The other said: "Also, how does exhibiting crosses pay respect to the wishes and beliefs of fallen soldiers of non-Christian faith?"

I agree with them. I think it is not only a violation of the First Amendment, but disrespectful when people erect giant crosses on public lands and/or with public money and claim it is a war memorial.

A cross erected over the grave of an individual soldier at his/her bequest or at the bequest of his/her family is entirely proper and different matter altogether.

I think it is a hideous practice to erect a religious grave marker without the direction of the deceased or their family. I, personally, would be disgusted and deeply offended to find such a marker over the grave of one of my immediate family members, knowing as I do that they would be just as deeply offended if they knew it was there. It is completely ludicrous to think that such a thing would be appropriate, since it requires that one assume everybody would be happy to have an icon of one particular religious sect raised above their remains...that's just plain stupid, frankly, and I can't believe there's anybody who honestly thinks it's a good idea. Put a stone and label to mark the grave, and allow the family to add or remove whatever they feel is appropriate once they find the grave, but don't presume to place your God's icon above another person without KNOWING it is what they would have wanted.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GET OVER IT! THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HAS GONE WAY TO FAR. THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON THE BELIFES OF CHRISTIANITY. Wow just realized I was typing with a capslock on.

If you dont like the Cross, dont look at it.

1. Don't believe in God.

2. I am commenting on current events -- in fact, recent statements by Christians that are moderate conservatives.

3. The wall of separation of Chuch and State is difficult to draw sometimes, but it has protected religious freedom in this country since at least the early 1800s. It appears to have done a fairly good job of causing Christianity to thrive.

4. Bullshit. Name a point in the Constitution that comes from Christianity -- with the possible ironic exception of separation of Church and State. ("Render unto Cesar ...")

5. If you wouldn't like a giant penis and vagina statute on the lawn of the White House (or the top of the highest hill in your town/city paid for by your tax dollars), then just don't look at it.

If you're not religious, the cross is just a cross.
Wrong. I am not religious at all, but the cross is not "just a cross" to me. It is an icon that represents values I find reprehensible, and finding a cross above my grave would be as insulting as finding a swastika or a KKK icon.

THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HAS GONE WAY TO [sic] FAR.

The seperation of Church and State can't ever go too far. They shouldn't be intermingled.

~~~~~~~~~
As for the question at hand: I don't think crosses are appropriate memorials to fallen soldiers. The cross very clearly represents Christianity and is a dishonorable memorial to any non-Christian soldier who has ever served. I think the most appropriate memorials to fallen soldiers are the small flags on wooden dowels that private cemeteries often place on the graves of veterans. I realize that then there is no distinction between a veteran who has died and a soldier who died in combat, but the memorial to a soldier ought to be a symbol of the cause or country for which s/he fought. A flag, an eagle, the symbol of his/her branch of the military for example. Not the symbol of the religion of the majority of a non-theocratic country's religion.

THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON THE BELIFES OF CHRISTIANITY.
Which is precisely why the Treaty of Tripoli says the exact opposite. Can't people be bothered to learn their own history before spouting off about it?

The seperation of Church and State can't ever go too far. They shouldn't be intermingled.

~~~~~~~~~
As for the question at hand. I don't think crosses are appropriate memorials to fallen soldiers. The cross very clearly represents Christianity and is a dishonorable memorial to any non-Christian soldier who has ever served. I think the most appropriate memorials to fallen soldiers are the small flags on wooden dowels that private cemeteries often place on the graves of veterans. I realize that then there is no distinction between a veteran who has died and a soldier who died in combat, but the memorial to a soldier ought to be a symbol of the cause or country for which s/he fought. A flag, an eagle, the symbol of his/her branch of the military for example. Not the symbol of the religion of the majority of a non-theocratic country's religion.Bingo.

My grandfather fought in WWII, as a Jew whose family had recently fled to America. He would have been horrified if a cross were raised above his grave, since the very cause he was fighting for was his right to NOT be a Christian...he was fighting for the side that would protect his right to be a Jew, his right to not have the cross forced upon him, his right to live in a country that gives all religious peoples EQUAL rights and citizen status.

Which is precisely why the Treaty of Tripoli says the exact opposite. Can't people be bothered to learn their own history before spouting off about it?
But if they learn things like "fact" and "history" then they might have to give up their self-serving delusions! You're just a big meanie for suggesting that!

How much of an impact is the number of graves rather then the fact that they are crosses and or stars? (that and the grounds and the setting)
its ALL the number of graves, stretching as far as the eye can see in some cemeteries, that makes the impression

The cross was a symbol on burial mounds long before Christ.

I think its more appropriate than inappropriate as whether you like it or not Jesus Christ is the Saviour.-_-

Although when i look at War Memorials i dont go out and about looking for Crosses im their for a reason to respect those that died for 'my' country any one that has anything else on their mind is being disrespectful.

The cross was a symbol on burial mounds long before Christ.
Much like the meaning of the swastika long predates the Nazis. But just ask fallen American soldiers if they'd mind swastikas on their graves. Like it or not, the modern meaning of the symbol is what carries the most weight with the average person. It costs us nothing to choose a neutral marker for those whose specific wishes are unknown.

OK. One more time:

I'm not talking about individual crosses over an individual grave of a soldier. Obviously, that may or may not be appropriate. I think a symbol of the faith of the soldier may be appropriate if desired by the soldier and/or his/her family.

I'm talking about cross erected NOT AT GRAVESITES as a suppposed memorial to a war or veterans in general. The typical example I think of are the big-ass crosses that get erected on high points like a hill. When someone objects to it being on public lands or being paid for by public money, it is excused as a war memorial.

OK. One more time:

I'm not talking about individual crosses over an individual grave of a soldier. Obviously, that may or may not be appropriate. I think a symbol of the faith of the soldier may be appropriate if desired by the soldier and/or his/her family.

I'm talking about cross erected NOT AT GRAVESITES as a suppposed memorial to a war or veterans in general. The typical example I think of are the big-ass crosses that get erected on high points like a hill. When someone objects to it being on public lands or being paid for by public money, it is excused as a war memorial.
Ah, your pardon. I thought you were refering to icons placed over graves as a "default," or markers used for soldiers whose families could not be located to determine their wishes.

Of course, my answer is still the same: a great many non-Christians have died for this country, and it insults their memory and their sacrifice to use a Christian religious icon in a monument that is nominally dedicated to their efforts.

I prefer the White simple graves that abound in Headstones that are put by the commonwealth Wargraves Commision

What about the Cross at Thiepval , it is a moving sight

the principles of CWGC

each of the dead should be commemorated individually by name on headstone or memorial;
headstones and memorials should be permanent;
headstones should be uniform;
there should be no distinction made on account of military or civil rank, race or creed.

:rolleyes: Oh, Christ, if you don't like it, pretend it's a "t."

Okay, without entering the merit of it, FUNNIEST QUOTE EVER!!! :D

Well, considering the majority of America is some form of Christianity, I'd have to say it is. You can only please one group of people at a time, you might as well please the most that you can at once.

Well, considering the majority of America is some form of Christianity, I'd have to say it is. You can only please one group of people at a time, you might as well please the most that you can at once.

Meh. Such an appeal to popularity is particularly inappropriate when considering the separation of Church and State.

We don't decide matters of fundamental liberties by popular vote. That is part of the beauty of America.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

A cross is much more convenient to erect than i.e. a crescent moon, or star of david.

On the flip side, given the original use of the cross as a device for execution, how about a gallows? Or a syringe? Imagine a modern day jesus, put to death by lethal injection....

5. If you wouldn't like a giant penis and vagina statute on the lawn of the White House (or the top of the highest hill in your town/city paid for by your tax dollars), then just don't look at it.

But as long as we ARE confronted with such images, not always in accordance with what we like, then I think that crosses, swastikas, or whatever can also be displayed publicly. After all, I don't like looking at two guys kissing in public, but there's nothing I can do about it.

normally, War Memorials are voted upon, not decided by one person. Usually a committee takes bids and design ideas and they are voted upon. Sometimes by that committe but most times by the public.

Most people view the Cross at War Memorials as the sign of sacrifice that the men gave so that others can live in the way they desire, and not strictly as the religious symbol of christianity.

As for Crosses displayed at War memorials, nothing wrong with that, in fact, I can also see additions being made to include the Star of David and other religious Icons.

What is placed on the Gravesites is up to the family and the Deceased, if arraingements have been made.

But as long as we ARE confronted with such images, not always in accordance with what we like, then I think that crosses, swastikas, or whatever can also be displayed publicly. After all, I don't like looking at two guys kissing in public, but there's nothing I can do about it.
But there is a difference between a private individual displaying something be it a penis or a cross , and a PUBLIC institution doing the same with public funds

Bingo.

My grandfather fought in WWII, as a Jew whose family had recently fled to America. He would have been horrified if a cross were raised above his grave, since the very cause he was fighting for was his right to NOT be a Christian...he was fighting for the side that would protect his right to be a Jew, his right to not have the cross forced upon him, his right to live in a country that gives all religious peoples EQUAL rights and citizen status.

Hum, your last statement now happens in Europe, too, if you're muslim. Well, maybe not in England :D

And if what your grandfather fought for was for not being conversed into christianism, don't worry, the nazis weren't christians. Hitler had the plan of closing all the churches after his victory in the war. But, when Rudolf Hess jumped over the UK and Martin Borrman replaced it, he commanded some SS batallions to appropiate the churches within the German territory.

Oh I went absolutely off-topic.

BTT: Crosses are not an appropriate memorial, for the reasons listed about 50 times above. In an officially laicist nation, the public showing of religious symbols is (or should be) forbidden.

Oh I went absolutely off-topic.

BTT: Crosses are not an appropriate memorial, for the reasons listed about 50 times above. In an officially laicist nation, the public showing of religious symbols is (or should be) forbidden.
Bah they are not forbidden only the government SPONSORED ones are forbidden by the separation of church and state.

Bah they are not forbidden only the government SPONSORED ones are forbidden by the separation of church and state.

Ah, it is also valid for me.

But there is a difference between a private individual displaying something be it a penis or a cross , and a PUBLIC institution doing the same with public funds

Oh, I don't know. You get into public funding for the arts and it's surprising what is being displayed on public property with public funding.

:rolleyes: Oh, Christ, if you don't like it, pretend it's a "t."

Well, if a family doesn't bother requesting not to have a cross erected on their loved one's grave, I really don't have a problem with it being there. On the other hand, if they DO request otherwise, I would hope that that would be respected - in fact, I would assume there's some sort of law that would prevent such a request from being legally ignored.

't' for "turtle"

The cross was a symbol on burial mounds long before Christ.

Unfortunately the symbol now conjurs images of Christianity throughout the entire Western world. It can no longer be used as a religiously neutral symbol. Besides, memorials to soldiers ought to be in some way a recognition of their country or cause.

Of course, my answer is still the same: a great many non-Christians have died for this country, and it insults their memory and their sacrifice to use a Christian religious icon in a monument that is nominally dedicated to their efforts.

Xerox.

Oh, I don't know. You get into public funding for the arts and it's surprising what is being displayed on public property with public funding.
You may have a case there though less so then also violating the separation of church and state

Unlike the codified separation there is no such code for taste

Since it is the Christians that are dying in Iraq, of course Christian symbols should be used to their memory. America is fighting against the Crescent Moon and the Star of David only got us into war, their blood is not shed. Americans and Westerners are dying, not Jews, Mohammedans, or atheists. Personally I think the Cross has become too ambiguous and Crucifixes and other symbols are much emotionally appropriate for war memorials.

Since it is the Christians that are dying in Iraq, of course Christian symbols should be used to their memory. America is fighting against the Crescent Moon and the Star of David only got us into war, their blood is not shed. Americans and Westerners are dying, not Jews, Mohammedans, or atheists. Personally I think the Cross has become too ambiguous and Crucifixes and other symbols are much emotionally appropriate for war memorials.
Lol that is a simplistic and erroneous point of view
Do you honestly think only Christians are solders
I feel sorry if you have managed to delude yourself that much.

I don't even think this should be a debate. They're dead, what do they care. Either they're living the afterlife, or they're catching some worms. what difference does it make. DEAD IS DEAD.

For God's sake (kind of humurous in this contex isn't it?) I am absolutely sick of the "we need to be politically correct" attitude of the left in this country. It's just what we've always done no one is trying to convert anyone by putting a cross on the war memorials or graves of soldiers! (and by the way you do NOT have the RIGHT to NEVER be OFFENDED, so live with it)

Yes

For God's sake (kind of humurous in this contex isn't it?) I am absolutely sick of the "we need to be politically correct" attitude of the left in this country. It's just what we've always done no one is trying to convert anyone by putting a cross on the war memorials or graves of soldiers! (and by the way you do NOT have the RIGHT to NEVER be OFFENDED, so live with it)

Hey, Eut's on vacation and we get another. WOOHOO.

Nothing personal, just find it humorous.

Hey, Eut's on vacation and we get another. WOOHOO.

Nothing personal, just find it humorous.

Lol, if I was to get offended at that it would kind of contradict everything I just said wouldn't it! ;)

Since it is the Christians that are dying in Iraq, of course Christian symbols should be used to their memory. America is fighting against the Crescent Moon and the Star of David only got us into war, their blood is not shed. Americans and Westerners are dying, not Jews, Mohammedans, or atheists. Personally I think the Cross has become too ambiguous and Crucifixes and other symbols are much emotionally appropriate for war memorials.

This is the most logically inconsistent post I've seen in a while.

1. You assert that only Christians are fighting in Iraq; I know for a fact that there are Jews serving in Iraq, and Muslims as well. Thus, the cross should not be the only religious symbol that is used because not only Christians are fighting.

2. You assert this is a war against Islam; this is no more true than saying World War Two was a war on Shintoism. We are fighting a war against extremists who use Islam as the motivation for terrible acts, and that has happened with every religion.

3. You assert that the Jews are responsible for Iraq; this is impossible seeing as how the war was neither planned nor proposed by them. Proof to the contrary would be beneficial.

4. You assert that not only are all Americans and Westerners are all Christian, but all non-Christians are not, and cannot be, Americans or Westerners. However, there are many Jews, Muslims, and atheists that are citizens of these countries and have the same rights as and are of equal status as Christians. Furthermore, the notion of religious qualification is against the traditions and laws of Western countries, and so the argument could be proposed that anyone who supports religious supremacy is un-American or un-Western.

I urge you to respond, because I love debunking religious supremacy and intolerance towards others.

For God's sake (kind of humurous in this contex isn't it?) I am absolutely sick of the "we need to be politically correct" attitude of the left in this country. It's just what we've always done no one is trying to convert anyone by putting a cross on the war memorials or graves of soldiers! (and by the way you do NOT have the RIGHT to NEVER be OFFENDED, so live with it)
Who is talking about PC we are talking about a codified SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE that they would be violating by making it a public memorial
On top of being tasteless

This is the most logically inconsistent post I've seen in a while.

1. You assert that only Christians are fighting in Iraq; I know for a fact that there are Jews serving in Iraq, and Muslims as well. Thus, the cross should not be the only religious symbol that is used because not only Christians are fighting.

2. You assert this is a war against Islam; this is no more true than saying World War Two was a war on Shintoism. We are fighting a war against extremists who use Islam as the motivation for terrible acts, and that has happened with every religion.

3. You assert that the Jews are responsible for Iraq; this is impossible seeing as how the war was neither planned nor proposed by them. Proof to the contrary would be beneficial.

4. You assert that not only are all Americans and Westerners are all Christian, but all non-Christians are not, and cannot be, Americans or Westerners. However, there are many Jews, Muslims, and atheists that are citizens of these countries and have the same rights as and are of equal status as Christians. Furthermore, the notion of religious qualification is against the traditions and laws of Western countries, and so the argument could be proposed that anyone who supports religious supremacy is un-American or un-Western.

I urge you to respond, because I love debunking religious supremacy and intolerance towards others.


It's pretty funney that i'm a Christian who believes strongely in my Faith but i'm goin to have to side with you on the incompetence of the afore mention post. I guess in the end reason always prevails...or extremism

It's pretty funney that i'm a Christian who believes strongely in my Faith but i'm goin to have to side with you on the incompetence of the afore mention post. I guess in the end reason always prevails...or extremism

I feel sorry for Christians who get lumped together with extremists by the hard secularists...it's no more fair or right than religious extremism.

Generally, I believe that the family of the deceased should be given the choice of monument.

I feel sorry for Christians who get lumped together with extremists by the hard secularists...it's no more fair or right than religious extremism.

Generally, I believe that the family of the deceased should be given the choice of monument.

Very true says this Christian. Choice is necessary.

Well, considering the majority of America is some form of Christianity, I'd have to say it is. You can only please one group of people at a time, you might as well please the most that you can at once.

Our country was designed specifically to avoid that being the case. We are Republic so that we don't have to always just please the largest group of people. When civil rights were first becoming an issue, the majority of the country believed women and minorities were second-class citizens. Should we have just agreed and sat down? No, of course not. It is absolutely possible to please more than just the Christians in this country. I'm a Christian and would be far be more pleased with a memorial that was neutral.

OK. One more time:

I'm not talking about individual crosses over an individual grave of a soldier. Obviously, that may or may not be appropriate. I think a symbol of the faith of the soldier may be appropriate if desired by the soldier and/or his/her family.

I'm talking about cross erected NOT AT GRAVESITES as a suppposed memorial to a war or veterans in general. The typical example I think of are the big-ass crosses that get erected on high points like a hill. When someone objects to it being on public lands or being paid for by public money, it is excused as a war memorial.

It seems no matter how many times you make this clear you will keep getting people who think this is about individual graves. I suggest you ignore them so we can actually debate the point of the thread.

This is the most logically inconsistent post I've seen in a while.

1. You assert that only Christians are fighting in Iraq; I know for a fact that there are Jews serving in Iraq, and Muslims as well. Thus, the cross should not be the only religious symbol that is used because not only Christians are fighting.
The total percentage of Jews who died in Iraq is about .02% Enough American tax money goes to their six million holocaust museums and other "jewish history centers". The Mudslums are doing nothing but beheading Americans. Why should they be honored?

2. You assert this is a war against Islam; this is no more true than saying World War Two was a war on Shintoism. We are fighting a war against extremists who use Islam as the motivation for terrible acts, and that has happened with every religion.
Bush's Iraq war in particular is NOT a war against "Islam" but Christendom is eternally at war with the Satanic savagery of the Mohammedan terror system.

3. You assert that the Jews are responsible for Iraq; this is impossible seeing as how the war was neither planned nor proposed by them. Proof to the contrary would be beneficial.
All of the architects behind the war (Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Fleischer, etc.) were Jews, as well the head intelligence official in determining Iraq having "wmds." The Jews alone benefit from the Iraq debacle.

4. You assert that not only are all Americans and Westerners are all Christian, but all non-Christians are not, and cannot be, Americans or Westerners. However, there are many Jews, Muslims, and atheists that are citizens of these countries and have the same rights as and are of equal status as Christians. Furthermore, the notion of religious qualification is against the traditions and laws of Western countries, and so the argument could be proposed that anyone who supports religious supremacy is un-American or un-Western.
Jews and Arabs are Semitic, a Middle Eastern classification. They are foreigners to the West. The West has been Christian for the dominant portion of the last two millenia, and Christian precepts form the religious Tradition of all Western countries.

The total percentage of Jews who died in Iraq is about .02% Enough American tax money goes to their six million holocaust museums and other "jewish history centers". The Mudslums are doing nothing but beheading Americans. Why should they be honored?


Bush's Iraq war in particular is NOT a war against "Islam" but Christendom is eternally at war with the Satanic savagery of the Mohammedan terror system.


All of the architects behind the war (Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Fleischer, etc.) were Jews, as well the head intelligence official in determining Iraq having "wmds." The Jews alone benefit from the Iraq debacle.


Jews and Arabs are Semitic, a Middle Eastern classification. They are foreigners to the West. The West has been Christian for the dominant portion of the last two millenia, and Christian precepts form the religious Tradition of all Western countries.

As a Christian and a Marine, I disagree with your point and the terms you used to make it. If you consider yourself a Christian, you should take a lesson from Christ and speak to others in a more reasonable and respecful way. Those who do not agree with your claims will be more willing to hear it when it's not full of silly insults. Not only is it unChristian, it's against the rules of this forums. Racial slurs are not allowed.

The total percentage of Jews who died in Iraq is about .02% Enough American tax money goes to their six million holocaust museums and other "jewish history centers". The Mudslums are doing nothing but beheading Americans. Why should they be honored?

Died=/=served. They deserve that money so that we won't forget what happened and we can prevent another holocaust from happening again.

Muslims aren't beheading people. Individuals who are Muslims are beheading people. You can't paint an entire group with the actions of individuals.


Bush's Iraq war in particular is NOT a war against "Islam" but Christendom is eternally at war with the Satanic savagery of the Mohammedan terror system.

I'd like to see you prove that not only is there a Satan, but he inspired Islam to attack Christendom.

The Christians don't have the best track record either, but when the two religions are compared at the same point in time, they are remarkably similar in their brutality. The Islam of today is equal to the Christianity of the Middle Ages. The Christians of today have moved on from that dark time and are tolerant and generally reflective of their faith, while too many Muslims are still stuck in comparative ignorance and brutality. The fault of that rests in their leaders' greed and shifting trade routes.

All of the architects behind the war (Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Fleischer, etc.) were Jews, as well the head intelligence official in determining Iraq having "wmds." The Jews alone benefit from the Iraq debacle.

The architects of WWII, Vietnam, and Korea were Christian...does that mean they engineered this war for the benefit of the Christians? I hardly think they are so self-serving as to do such a thing, and neither are the Jews, as their beliefs have proven.

And how does it benefit the Jews? Last I recalled, they don't have any presence in Iraq. Cheney is a Christian who was the former head of the company who has the most to gain from Iraq; it seems those Christians are at it again...or is this just stereotyping like your own?

Jews and Arabs are Semitic, a Middle Eastern classification. They are foreigners to the West. The West has been Christian for the dominant portion of the last two millenia, and Christian precepts form the religious Tradition of all Western countries.

The Western civilizations are foreigners as well, having fully migrated there during the time of the Babylonians and Sumerians. Their original religion was a variety of related polytheistic systems, and Christianity was originally spread by Semitic peoples and Hellenistic peoples from Asia Minor in to Europe. Christianity was founded by a Semitic Jew and its first leaders were Jews. So, in effect, Christianity was a foreign belief that took root in Europe and was eventually forced on everyone during the later days of the Roman Empire.

The total percentage of Jews who died in Iraq is about .02% Enough American tax money goes to their six million holocaust museums and other "jewish history centers". The Mudslums are doing nothing but beheading Americans. Why should they be honored?


Bush's Iraq war in particular is NOT a war against "Islam" but Christendom is eternally at war with the Satanic savagery of the Mohammedan terror system.


All of the architects behind the war (Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Fleischer, etc.) were Jews, as well the head intelligence official in determining Iraq having "wmds." The Jews alone benefit from the Iraq debacle.


Jews and Arabs are Semitic, a Middle Eastern classification. They are foreigners to the West. The West has been Christian for the dominant portion of the last two millenia, and Christian precepts form the religious Tradition of all Western countries.
Hey everybody, TT's back!

Crosses are only good for ridiculing, burning, and throwing away.

Crosses are only good for ridiculing, burning, and throwing away.
...don't forget nailing things on...

I think crosses are fine if the soldier was christian if he was jewish or buddhist or wiccan I would expect the symbols representing those religions used

When I see a cross not in a church, on a necklace (or any other type of jewelry), or in a house/building, I don't see it as a Cross. I see it as all the people that have died.

So it's a cross... they're not saying 'haha, everyone who died was a christian and if you weren't, screw you.' They're just using what was used long before everyone decided a cross only meant belief in Jesus.

I think that it is fine so long as:

* It's not exclusive. Should follow the "Christmas tree" rules, where Jewish and other religions that are present in the town get equal representation.

or

* If it's a memorial for a group that was all Christian. Though rare today, pre-WW2 it was *somewhat* common, as companies and regiments were raised from towns and counties and went to fight together. (IE: The 3rd Michigan Infantry was mustered at Grand Rapids, MI in 1861. At the time, nearly the entire state Christian.)

Crosses are only good for ridiculing, burning, and throwing away.


Yep. Just like Korans are only good for flushing. :rolleyes:

For christians or largely christian nations or nations with historically christian values (Western) nations it is appropiate unless soldiers clearly not christian, but nondenominational markers such as national flags would be preferable.

As a Christian and a Marine

Jocabia, I didn't know you'd served (are serving?) in the military! How did I miss that? :confused:

Jocabia, I didn't know you'd served (are serving?) in the military! How did I miss that? :confused:

8 years. Got out in 1999. I'm pretty open about my history with the Marine Corps. I'm proud of it. I got a lot out of it. And I would do it again in second.

Statues with an eagle, soldiers (like the Iwo Jima monument) , and/or the American Flag would be more appropriate imo.

Statues with an eagle, soldiers (like the Iwo Jima monument) , and/or the American Flag would be more appropriate imo.
I said the same thing lol (in fact posted a picture of the Iwo Jima monument)

Much more stiring then a cross

When I see a cross not in a church, on a necklace (or any other type of jewelry), or in a house/building, I don't see it as a Cross. I see it as all the people that have died.

So it's a cross... they're not saying 'haha, everyone who died was a christian and if you weren't, screw you.' They're just using what was used long before everyone decided a cross only meant belief in Jesus.
Oh? and what did a cross meanbefore Jesus (besides a sign of torutre ... jesus was not the first nor the last crusified)

Let me re quote something for you


EDIT:
Aldranin, while we're at it let's pretend a swastika is a poorly drawn 'x.' You can't honestly ask people to just detatch concepts from images that you've been waving around for centuries. Trying to call a spade a wheelbarrow isn't going to solve anyone's problems.

I think that crosses are entirely suitable as war memorials unless the person is noted as being under another religion i.e jews should have the star of david. One thing i noticed in germany however is the disrespect payed to german soldiers who died during WW2. they are put down and unlike the white crosses of the allies graves they are black. I am not a nazi but in death a soldier who fought for the losing side should be granted as much respect as one for the winning.

Most of the War Memorials (the memorable ones anyway) that I see in my country are usually along the lines of a bronze sculpture representing a soldier, standing on a plinth, with a plaque bearing an inscription and the names of the fallen (actually, my job involves a lot of restoring said sculptures) Perhaps in America huge crosses as the main point of large war memorials are more prevalent?

In any case, I voted, NO, a cross is is certainly not an appropriate icon/symbol for a mass war memorial.

I've noticed that WWI memorials, while incorporating religious symbols (usually on the palque) tend to include the symbols of many different faiths, while on WWII memorials, the cross is much more predominant, though once again, not an integral part of the design (ie: not what you immediately notice) I wonder why the attitude seems to have changed in the years intervening those 2 wars...

Most of the War Memorials (the memorable ones anyway) that I see in my country are usually along the lines of a bronze sculpture representing a soldier, standing on a plinth, with a plaque bearing an inscription and the names of the fallen (actually, my job involves a lot of restoring said sculptures) Perhaps in America huge crosses as the main point of large war memorials are more prevalent?

No, they are not. The public funded war memorials are almost always multi-purpose religious or secular and straight forward. This thread here is complaining about a bunch of non-issues really. The big large crosses on public property were inevitably built by a private fund or a private group of veterans or citizens who did the memorial... and then years later they are either donated to the public welfare or the property they are on is absorbed onto public property, etc., and they become wards of the state…

Then, once on public property, these historical monuments and war memorials are attacked by the anti-religion people for it's religious symbolism and they think it should be tore down because it costs public money to maintain it ... they never bother to mention that tearing it down have it removed is likely to cost more than a hundred years of maintenance would, but that's not really their point anyway nor why they want to get rid of it in the first place, it's just an excuse. They want to remove all public historical references to religion whenever they can, damn the fact that the monuments themselves are historical artifacts worthy of protection on their own rights.

No, they are not. The public funded war memorials are almost always multi-purpose religious or secular and straight forward. This thread here is complaining about a bunch of non-issues really. The big large crosses on public property were inevitably built by a private fund or a private group of veterans or citizens who did the memorial... and then years later they are either donated to the public welfare or the property they are on is absorbed onto public property, etc., and they become wards of the state…

Then, once on public property, these historical monuments and war memorials are attacked by the anti-religion people for it's religious symbolism and they think it should be tore down because it costs public money to maintain it ... they never bother to mention that tearing it down have it removed is likely to cost more than a hundred years of maintenance would, but that's not really their point anyway nor why they want to get rid of it in the first place, it's just an excuse. They want to remove all public historical references to religion whenever they can, damn the fact that the monuments themselves are historical artifacts worthy of protection on their own rights.

It's not about costs. The problem is that you can't claim to be a country that doesn't promote one religion over another and at the same time have Christian symbols all over the place.

People aren't generally complaining about historical artifacts as much as recent monuments. If a church in Philadelphia becomes a landmark because George Washington was born there or something, they don't tear it down because of it's religious significance or say that it can't be a protected landmark. It doesn't work that way. People are talking about monuments that were intentionally made as religious monuments upon their making, like a statue of the ten commandments on a courthouse lawn, or new monuments that are being erecting and given religious significance when no religious significance in necessary. There is no need for a war memorial to look like a cross. It can just as easily look like a soldier or a flag.

It's all about the money, it's nearly always a debate in court about the money.

But to your point. Any private group or association can choose to build a religious inspired monument, donate the money and find a piece of property for it and have no control over who will own that land a hundred years later.

The topic here is large crosses, so I'm only talking about large crosses. The various American Legion posts (for example) have built many large cross monuments and it is well within their rights to do so whether you think they should use crosses or not. Most of which are historical sites in their own rites now, there are a few that were built in places that are now public property but weren't public property when the monuments were built, and they are causing the debate in the courts and the public opinion.

It's all about the money, it's nearly always a debate in court about the money.

But to your point. Any private group or association can choose to build a religious inspired monument, donate the money and find a piece of property for it and have no control over who will own that land a hundred years later.

The topic here is large crosses, so I'm only talking about large crosses. The various American Legion posts (for example) have built many large cross monuments and it is well within their rights to do so whether you think they should use crosses or not. Most of which are historical sites in their own rites now, there are a few that were built in places that are now public property but weren't public property when the monuments were built, and they are causing the debate in the courts and the public opinion.
Personally I think they should be maintained just for the historical portion of it

But I would shy away from massive renovations and such

It's all about the money, it's nearly always a debate in court about the money.

But to your point. Any private group or association can choose to build a religious inspired monument, donate the money and find a piece of property for it and have no control over who will own that land a hundred years later.

The topic here is large crosses, so I'm only talking about large crosses. The various American Legion posts (for example) have built many large cross monuments and it is well within their rights to do so whether you think they should use crosses or not. Most of which are historical sites in their own rites now, there are a few that were built in places that are now public property but weren't public property when the monuments were built, and they are causing the debate in the courts and the public opinion.

Source. You're little strawman that this is all about monuments on private property that became public property a hundred years later needs a source. Historical sites are protected by normal procedure. That could be a building of any type and does not descriminate. Show evidence or be dismissed.

Source. You're little strawman that this is all about monuments on private property that became public property a hundred years later needs a source. Historical sites are protected by normal procedure. That could be a building of any type and does not descriminate. Show evidence or be dismissed.


Show evidence? People should cover their own ignorance instead of revealing it so publicly, how banal. You just like posting hateful accusations and challenges simply to be contrary don’t you? Even when it is pointless you just like trying to spit it seems.

What was you point anyway, if not just to be trite? Dismiss yourself.

70 year old cross…
A wooden cross was erected there in 1934 by the local Veterans of Foreign Wars chapter to honor World War I veterans. Over the years it was replaced by a cross made of metal pipe, which locals have maintained. The rock is the site of various commemorations, including Easter sunrise services.
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13522

90 year old cross…
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/venrtura.htm

50 years ago…
http://www.soledadmemorial.com/history.html

Show evidence? People should cover their own ignorance instead of revealing it so publicly, how banal. You just like posting hateful accusations and challenges simply to be contrary don’t you? Even when it is pointless you just like trying to spit it seems.

What was you point anyway, if not just to be trite? Dismiss yourself.

Wow, I didn't realize respecting religious freedom was hateful and trite. I like crosses. I helped rebuild a church last year after the hurricanes in Florida. The difference is that I chose to support and engage in those activities. Religious symbols have no business being erected and maintained on public lands. It's respecting a religion and it's at the expense of all others including those that practice none. I'm content enough in my faith, so I don't have to have gigantic graven images in order to practice my faith.

70 year old cross…
A wooden cross was erected there in 1934 by the local Veterans of Foreign Wars chapter to honor World War I veterans. Over the years it was replaced by a cross made of metal pipe, which locals have maintained. The rock is the site of various commemorations, including Easter sunrise services.
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13522

Erected on public lands for only religious purposes. Not the strawman you presented. Not what you said. You said they were erected on private land that became public.

90 year old cross…
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/venrtura.htm

50 years ago…
http://www.soledadmemorial.com/history.html

Same for the other two. From your links they appear to have been erected on public land as symbols of faith.

The topic here is large crosses, so I'm only talking about large crosses. The various American Legion posts (for example) have built many large cross monuments and it is well within their rights to do so whether you think they should use crosses or not. Most of which are historical sites in their own rites now, there are a few that were built in places that are now public property but weren't public property when the monuments were built, and they are causing the debate in the courts and the public opinion.

Now would you actually like to give an example of what you said you were talking about or are you admitting it's a strawman. I realize it pisses you off when I suggest you support your spurious claims, but I'm patient. This try to take a deep breath and speak to the actual point. Otherwise you risk doing exactly what you railed against in the first sentence of the post, again.

Two of these forums most ardent supporters of veterans recently decride the erection of crosses to honor soldiers killed in Iraq.

One called it "disrepectful" for anyone other than a family member to erect a cross for a fallen soldier.

The other said: "Also, how does exhibiting crosses pay respect to the wishes and beliefs of fallen soldiers of non-Christian faith?"

I agree with them. I think it is not only a violation of the First Amendment, but disrespectful when people erect giant crosses on public lands and/or with public money and claim it is a war memorial.

A cross erected over the grave of an individual soldier at his/her bequest or at the bequest of his/her family is entirely proper and different matter altogether.

EDIT:

I'm not focusing on individual crosses over an individual grave of a soldier. Obviously, that may or may not be appropriate. I think a symbol of the faith of the soldier may be appropriate if desired by the soldier and/or his/her family.

I'm talking about cross erected NOT AT GRAVESITES as a suppposed memorial to a war or veterans in general. The typical example I think of are the big-ass crosses that get erected on high points like a hill. When someone objects to it being on public lands or being paid for by public money, it is excused as a war memorial.
Seems like they wern't focused on crosses put up to honor the dead soldiers, but crosses put up by war protestors without the permission of the famalies of those whose names were put on those crosses. And it would seem like a sleezy thing to do, epsecialy as we on the left have been railing against the cross for decades now, only to put them up when it is convenient to our cause. :rolleyes:

Aren't most war memorials not crosses in any case.

At least the ones I know aren't (Cenotaph etc.)

Antre_Travarious']Seems like they wern't focused on crosses put up to honor the dead soldiers, but crosses put up by war protestors without the permission of the famalies of those whose names were put on those crosses. And it would seem like a sleezy thing to do, epsecialy as we on the left have been railing against the cross for decades now, only to put them up when it is convenient to our cause. :rolleyes:
Ok I don’t know where that came from because the protesters were not using public lands nor money which is what the discussion is about

Not to mention you stereotype the whole group
There are Christian members of the left, how exactly is it hypocritical that they use personal money and land to erect a symbol of their faith? I think that is EXACTLY what they have been fighting for … the ability for them to freely do it privately as well as everyone else

You people mistake our wish to not be forced to support religions that we do not believe in or agree with, with a wish to get rid of all personal symbols. You may want to learn the difference.

:rolleyes: Oh, Christ, if you don't like it, pretend it's a "t."

.


LOL! :D

Wow, I didn't realize respecting religious freedom was hateful and trite. I like crosses. I helped rebuild a church last year after the hurricanes in Florida. The difference is that I chose to support and engage in those activities. Religious symbols have no business being erected and maintained on public lands. It's respecting a religion and it's at the expense of all others including those that practice none. I'm content enough in my faith, so I don't have to have gigantic graven images in order to practice my faith.

You are free to have your opinion, and I didn't say your opinion was hateful and trite, I said the manner and method of the way you post is hateful and trite. And it still is.


Now would you actually like to give an example of what you said you were talking about or are you admitting it's a strawman. I realize it pisses you off when I suggest you support your spurious claims, but I'm patient. This try to take a deep breath and speak to the actual point. Otherwise you risk doing exactly what you railed against in the first sentence of the post, again.


Mojave Desert Cross
The cross, the subject of constant attack by vandals, was constructed in 1934 by a group of World War I veterans. According to a plaque they placed nearby, the cross was intended as a memorial, but has since attracted Christian worshipers...

…The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a retired National Park Service employee who objected to the religious symbolism of the steel-pipe structure, which sits about 10 miles south of Interstate 15 between Las Vegas and Barstow…

Sixty years after the cross was constructed, Congress in 1994 declared the 1.6 million-acre area, which is covered with Joshua trees, a national preserve under the National Park Service's jurisdiction.
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2004/buon060804.htm

You are free to have your opinion, and I didn't say your opinion was hateful and trite, I said the manner and method of the way you post is hateful and trite. And it still is.

Yet, I didn't insult YOU. Hmmm...


Mojave Desert Cross
The cross, the subject of constant attack by vandals, was constructed in 1934 by a group of World War I veterans. According to a plaque they placed nearby, the cross was intended as a memorial, but has since attracted Christian worshipers...

…The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a retired National Park Service employee who objected to the religious symbolism of the steel-pipe structure, which sits about 10 miles south of Interstate 15 between Las Vegas and Barstow…

Sixty years after the cross was constructed, Congress in 1994 declared the 1.6 million-acre area, which is covered with Joshua trees, a national preserve under the National Park Service's jurisdiction.
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2004/buon060804.htm

Who owned it prior to that point? If it was not private property then it is certainly an issue. If it was private property, then I agree with you. It's still not the majority of cases or even a significant percentage of the cases where people take issue.