Thread: Atheist group tries to desecrate a Marine memorial.

Why are all Christians mass murdering fascists?

Your thread is a pile of shit. I don't get it, were you deliberately trying to make yourself look like an absolute moron?

It's a bit much to post about this and then imply that all atheists are tyrannical and intolerant, as if every atheist in the U.S. agrees with the group trying to get those crosses taken down.

The answer to your second question is in the video you embedded. Technically the memorial is on government land and could be seen as an endorsement of Christianity, which could then be seen as a violation of the first amendment.

I for one don't care about the crosses being there. My guess is that for too many nonreligious folks, once they drop the mythical god(s), they pick up another and call it the government. Then stuff like this happens. I'm not saying their claim is unjustified, just that there are a lot more important issues they could be working on than picking on a memorial on top of a big hill.

Unrelated: Ne-yo, why do you always leave out the "s" when using the plural tense of "atheist?"

Originally Posted by BLUELINES

It's a bit much to post about this and then imply that all atheists are tyrannical and intolerant, as if every atheist in the U.S. agrees with the group trying to get those crosses taken down.

That's quite interesting.

Originally Posted by BLUELINES

The answer to your second question is in the video you embedded. Technically the memorial is on government land and could be seen as an endorsement of Christianity, which could then be seen as a violation of the first amendment.

I really do not think most people fully comprehend this, however, the first amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion. The separation of Church from State does not in any way imply exclusion of such shrines appearance on public or government property. The original intentions of separation of Church from State convey's that no one state-sponsored religion can be forced upon an individual legally and in-turn promoting itself as an official religion. It doesn't matter where any monuments, religious shrines or whatever are placed. You cannot be forced to adopt that particular religion, worship, pray etc.. nor can your religion or lack thereof; be held against you for any legal reasons.

? "tries to desecrate" ? "tyrannic and intolerant" ?

The hyperbole doesn't help your wounded bird routine. If US Christians didn't throw a fit and claim persecution every time it's questioned whether they should have hegemony over all realms public and private, maybe we wouldn't have to be so careful about Christian symbols in secular organizations. As things stand, it's very likely that the ginormous cross is used to endorse and/or enforce Christian culture in at least some circles at Camp Pendleton, if not camp-wide. The groups opposed are not pissing on any graves or demanding a laser hologram of Richard Dawkins in place of the cross. They're simply questioning the decision of some marines to use their comrades' deaths to advertise a social club to which all of the fallen may or may not have belonged, and to which current and future marines may feel compelled to pay lip service due to the cross's presence.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

That's quite interesting.

Why? It's just the old fallacy of composition.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

? "tries to desecrate" ? "tyrannic and intolerant" ?

The hyperbole doesn't help your wounded bird routine. If US Christians didn't throw a fit and claim persecution every time it's questioned whether they should have hegemony over all realms public and private, maybe we wouldn't have to be so careful about Christian symbols in secular organizations. As things stand, it's very likely that the ginormous cross is used to endorse and/or enforce Christian culture in at least some circles at Camp Pendleton, if not camp-wide. The groups opposed are not pissing on any graves or demanding a laser hologram of Richard Dawkins in place of the cross. They're simply questioning the decision of some marines to use their comrades' deaths to advertise a social club to which all of the fallen may or may not have belonged, and to which current and future marines may feel compelled to pay lip service due to the cross's presence.

The title of this thread is in no way an exaggeration, try not to get too sensitive and caught up in semantics. This group is not questioning anything, what they are doing is threatening a lawsuit. There's a difference, so yes they are trying to deliberately piss on this memorial. Have you even been to Camp Pen before? How do you figure it's ginormous?

The First Amendment issue here is that the government cannot EVER be in the business of promoting a religion. However, citizens are allowed to express and promote religions. The line gets very blurry and confusing when a citizen working for the government promotes a religion for his own citizen purposes while in a government setting.

If a family member of a dead soldier went to his government grave yard and put a cross by his burial site, that would probably be fine. Its just a citizen using free expression. If a soldier does it, things get complicated. Is he acting as a citizen with free expression, or is he acting as the government? It's a hard call. However, so many Christians are pushing so hard to turn the U.S. government into a Sunday school class that many atheists are feeling the need to fight them tooth and nail on the separation of church and state issue. If the push toward theocracy would stop, atheists would feel a lot more comfortable letting things like soldiers putting up crosses at government grave yards slide.

I wonder how most Christians would feel about a Muslim soldier putting up a Muslim symbol at the same cemetary.

By the way, "In God We Trust" needs to be taken off coins. It is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

I live right next to camp pendleton O_O

I think it's ridiculous and not a big deal.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

The title of this thread is in no way an exaggeration, try not to get too sensitive and caught up in semantics. This group is not questioning anything, what they are doing is threatening a lawsuit. There's a difference, so yes they are trying to deliberately piss on this memorial. Have you even been to Camp Pen before? How do you figure it's ginormous?

did you not watch your own clip? (the Navy chaplain name-checked my old Psych of Religion prof, btw).

And no, pursuing due process to have one element of the memorial removed does not constitute either desecration or "pissing on" the memorial. They're not asking that the entire memorial be removed--only the honking big endorsement of Christian faith, which all of the men to whom the memorial is dedicated may or may not have shared, and all of the men who wish to honor fallen comrades certainly do not share. The memorial will remain a memorial, and sacred in that respect, in the absence of the cross. Indeed, it will be all the more sacred for those who don't find reminders of Christian hegemony comforting or inspirational.

Come on Ne-Yo, pipe up. Why do you support the mass killing of innocent school children? I don't get it.

As long as the Government's position on the memorial is neutral, and they allow anybody else to erect their own memorials on such sites, religious or otherwise, there isn't a problem with it. There is no issue here, it's just bloody obvious.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The First Amendment issue here is that the government cannot EVER be in the business of promoting a religion. However, citizens are allowed to express and promote religions. The line gets very blurry and confusing when a citizen working for the government promotes a religion for his own citizen purposes while in a government setting.

Except no one is promoting a religion, these are 'battle crosses'. There's another cross on Camp Pen that's been there for decades that no one has ever seemed to have a problem with that one. So why now?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If a family member of a dead soldier went to his government grave yard and put a cross by his burial site, that would probably be fine. Its just a citizen using free expression. If a soldier does it, things get complicated. Is he acting as a citizen with free expression, or is he acting as the government? It's a hard call.

The target of such an inquiry should be rather or not the solider is actually promoting a religion. Everyone has stated on numerous occasions that this is a memorial not a religious monument.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I wonder how most Christians would feel about a Muslim soldier putting up a Muslim symbol at the same cemetary.

I wonder how most Atheists would feel about that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

By the way, "In God We Trust" needs to be taken off coins. It is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

You're telling me as if I can do something about that. Don't complain about it, move on it. Especially if it's really of the utmost importance and concern for your way of life.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

did you not watch your own clip? (the Navy chaplain name-checked my old Psych of Religion prof, btw).

I watched it but since when did 13ft become ginormous? You obviously haven't been around extremely large things before like commercial airliners and cruise ships before.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

And no, pursuing due process to have one element of the memorial removed does not constitute either desecration or "pissing on" the memorial. They're not asking that the entire memorial be removed--only the honking big endorsement of Christian faith, which all of the men to whom the memorial is dedicated may or may not have shared, and all of the men who wish to honor fallen comrades certainly do not share. The memorial will remain a memorial, and sacred in that respect, in the absence of the cross. Indeed, it will be all the more sacred for those who don't find reminders of Christian hegemony comforting or inspirational.

They all shared the same battle and the same journey 10 years ago and that's what the cross symbolically represent for them. They are battle crosses and just because you have two wooden objects intersecting each other creating the image of a cross does not mean it's religious in nature. What's next, you want to get rid of this letter because it's been know to sometimes look like a cross?

This stuff kind of reminds me of those Vampire movies. :p

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Except no one is promoting a religion, these are 'battle crosses'. There's another cross on Camp Pen that's been there for decades that no one has ever seemed to have a problem with that one. So why now?

People don't always complain right away. Maybe the protestors didn't know about the other one or didn't feel enough support until recently. The same question can be asked about most protest movements.

I don't know much about battle crosses. They have nothing to do with the Christian cross?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

The target of such an inquiry should be rather or not the solider is actually promoting a religion. Everyone has stated on numerous occasions that this is a memorial not a religious monument.

I thought the issue concerned the crosses at the memorial.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I wonder how most Atheists would feel about that.

Probably about the same as they do about the crosses, in most cases.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

You're telling me as if I can do something about that. Don't complain about it, move on it. Especially if it's really of the utmost importance and concern for your way of life.

That's crazy. This is a discussion forum, and I gave my opinion. Isn't that what you are doing?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

They all shared the same battle and the same journey 10 years ago and that's what the cross symbolically represent for them. They are battle crosses and just because you have two wooden objects intersecting each other creating the image of a cross does not mean it's religious in nature. What's next, you want to get rid of this letter because it's been know to sometimes look like a cross?

I'll take this tangent as you ceding that your use of the term "desecration" was inflammatory BS.

The monument bears very little resemblance to a traditional battle cross made from a soldier's weapons, but even those are meant to approximate a Christian cross. There's some argument to be made that battle crosses are a specifically military and not necessarily religious observance--a simple way of approximating a common grave marker. Whether the crucifixion-ready monument at Camp Pendleton was meant to look like a battle cross or meant to look like what battle crosses are meant to look like is a bit of a boondoggle. Being the size of an actual crucifix, it seems unlikely that "generic grave marker" with no reference to Christ's death was the intended effect.

Originally Posted by Xei

As long as the Government's position on the memorial is neutral, and they allow anybody else to erect their own memorials on such sites, religious or otherwise, there isn't a problem with it. There is no issue here, it's just bloody obvious.

As UM brought up, at what point are we talking about "the Government" [sic]? If a whole unit erects a cross in a military base, is it a stretch to take it as a statement that "We are a Christian unit"? If significant numbers of brass and enlisted express approval of said cross and encourage each other to go there and say Christian prayers, is it a stretch to take it as a statement that "This is a Christian base"? Would a recruit be mistaken in thinking they may face obstacles in that base and in the Marines as an organization if they don't profess Christianity?

Whether such a culture exists at Camp P is an open question, and a lawsuit seems a pretty good way to resolve it.

As long as it's all personal approval and personal funding, rather than state sanction and state funding, I really don't see what the problem is.

Officials in the military penalising others on the basis of religion is an utterly separate issue. If that is happening then it should be stopped, but I don't see anybody claiming that it is happening.

Originally Posted by Xei

Why are all Christians mass murdering fascists?

Why does Xei say stupid shit?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

People don't always complain right away. Maybe the protestors didn't know about the other one or didn't feel enough support until recently. The same question can be asked about most protest movements.

I don't know much about battle crosses. They have nothing to do with the Christian cross?

It doesn't share the same symbolic representation as Christianity.

Fallen Soldier Battle Cross - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I thought the issue concerned the crosses at the memorial.

Yes so in this case can it be rightfully determined that the soldiers that put the cross up are actually trying to conform people to Christianity.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That's crazy. This is a discussion forum, and I gave my opinion. Isn't that what you are doing?

I'm just saying, you made it appear as if you wanted me to hop on the first thing smoking to D.C. in order to push Congress to do something about this.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I'll take this tangent as you ceding that your use of the term "desecration" was inflammatory BS.

Why are you so hung up on that word???

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The monument bears very little resemblance to a traditional battle cross made from a soldier's weapons, but even those are meant to approximate a Christian cross. There's some argument to be made that battle crosses are a specifically military and not necessarily religious observance--a simple way of approximating a common grave marker. Whether the crucifixion-ready monument at Camp Pendleton was meant to look like a battle cross or meant to look like what battle crosses are meant to look like is a bit of a boondoggle. Being the size of an actual crucifix, it seems unlikely that "generic grave marker" with no reference to Christ's death was the intended effect.

What you're doing is ignoring the secular purpose of the memorial by asserting that the cross can mean one thing and one thing only and to assume that because it is the most paramount symbol of Christianity, that is the only thing that it can be represented by as the cross doesn't ad-hear to reality as well. Which to me means you're being willfully blind to believe that a cross cannot represent something other than a proselytization for Christianity (even despite the fact that there are hundreds of different Christian sects that does not even believe Christ actually died on a cross).

Originally Posted by mooseantlers

Why does Xei say stupid shit?

It's no big news for the basic meaning of a post to fly straight over Ne-Yo's head, but I'd've thought you'd've fared a little better.

Originally Posted by Xei

It's no big news for the basic meaning of a post to fly straight over Ne-Yo's head, but I'd've thought you'd've fared a little better.

Mistake #1

Originally Posted by Xei

It's no big news for the basic meaning of a post to fly straight over Ne-Yo's head, but I'd've thought you'd've fared a little better.

Cryptic meanings are often lost on the internet. Also WTF at those contractions.

If I say something utterly retarded which also happens to be analogous to something a previous poster said, it's highly possible that I'm engaging in parody.

The most pathetic part is that she's still holding a long term grudge over missing stars or something of that nature.

Oh look, somebody's run out of arguments again.

But on a more serious note that was a cheap shot and I extend my apologies. Let's say you and I bury the hatchet and call it a truths because arguing with you all these years over silly stuff is getting old. Friends?

On the basis of your conduct pretty much anywhere else in the forums I'd say yes, but the problem is every so often you make a thread in R/S like this where you'll do something scary like blanket labelling everybody who doesn't believe in God as 'intolerant tyrants' on the basis of a tiny number of individuals.