Mt. Soledad cross ordered to be taken down

[Tiberius]

The crosses in military cemeteries are on government property, tax payers money keeps them up and pay for those crosses.

GC

Yes, but in that case, it's an example of allowing any religion to participate, and there is plenty of room for the headstones. Additionally, the headstone is not the government displaying one religion over another, or supporting one religion in particular, but rather it is a display of the deceased's religion.

If however, the entrance to the graveyard had a cross on the gate and nothing else, that would be a government display of religion (namely, Christianity) over the others. I admit it's a fine (and often strange) line to draw, but the point of separation comes when the focus shifts from the individual to a group of people.

An individual's headstone displaying a cross, even if the government has paid for it and put it there, is clearly (in my opinion anyway) a display of that individual's religious beliefs. The same cannot be said if the cross was on display at the entrance to the graveyard (giving the impression that this is a Christian graveyard) or some public building. The individualism simply isn't there.

FYI, Military headstones are customized to display a symbol of the religion to which the deceased belonged:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...nd_markers

[Neo-Scholastic]

The problem of placing of religious icons on public land has two solutions:

1) You let anyone from any religion put their icon up.

2) You don't let anyone from any religion (including atheists) put any icons up.

Generally, I agree. Now extend that logic to political displays and monuments.

Free expression is free expression regardless of content. The point of "make no law establishing" was not to exclude religion from policy making and public discourse. It was to prevent the state from stifling such discourse by establishing a single approved point of view.

It is disingenuous to say that one type of opinion is allowed because it is partisan (but secular) one but another is not allowed because it is religious.

Maybe you think we should tear down all the statues of Dr. King. He was a Christian preacher and having monuments to him is promoting his religious vision for a fair and just society.

[Angrboda]

It is disingenuous to say that one type of opinion is allowed because it is partisan (but secular) one but another is not allowed because it is religious.

No it's not. It's fairly plain. One opinion is allowed because it doesn't further a single religion. The other is not because it does. Partisan has nothing to do with it.

What's disingenuous is the amount of equivocation and substitution of terms you'll go through to justify wanting to push your single religion using my (and everyone else's) land and resources.

Government + religion, no. Government + secular viewpoints, okay. For reasons it doesn't take a prophet to foresee.


It's like they say, to a Christian, not being allowed to force everybody else = oppression of their religion.

[Tiberius]

Generally, I agree. Now extend that logic to political displays and monuments.

That's largely irrelevant, given that the establishment clause is specifically focused on religion.

Free expression is free expression regardless of content. The point of "make no law establishing" was not to exclude religion from policy making and public discourse. It was to prevent the state from stifling such discourse by establishing a single approved point of view.

It actually goes further than that, but those parts aren't relevant to the discussion here. The establishment clause has been repeatedly tested over the years, including several times in relation to religious displays, and the Supreme Court on nearly all occasions has affirmed that such displays violate the Establishment Clause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishm...s_displays

It is disingenuous to say that one type of opinion is allowed because it is partisan (but secular) one but another is not allowed because it is religious.

Not really, since as I've mentioned previously, the establishment clause deals only with religion.

Maybe you think we should tear down all the statues of Dr. King. He was a Christian preacher and having monuments to him is promoting his religious vision for a fair and just society.

Dr. King is first and foremost, a civil rights activist, and what he is most remembered for is his work with civil rights. As you've said previously, the establishment clause does not prevent people from using their religious beliefs to influence policy making.

Tearing down statues of Dr. King would be pointless, as such statues celebrate the man and his achievements, rather than some religion. There would be no grounds for them to be removed.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It is disingenuous to say that one type of opinion is allowed because it is partisan (but secular) one but another is not allowed because it is religious.

No it's not. It's fairly plain. One opinion is allowed because it doesn't further a single religion...

Please explain how making provision for multiple points of view and various religious traditions is furthering a single religion. Your position is absurd. It is also bigoted because clearly you have a problem with only one particular religion: Christianity. Haters just gotta hate.

[EgoRaptor]

No, it's religious symbols on public land, not just the Christian cross. If it had been an Islamic symbol, the Star of David, a statue of a Hindu god, etc, we'd be wanting it removed, too. As would, likely, those Christians defending this cross.

The crosses in military cemeteries are on government property, tax payers money keeps them up and pay for those crosses.

GC

No one should have to pay to put up a religious symbol when they don't support that religion.

[Godscreated]

The crosses in military cemeteries are on government property, tax payers money keeps them up and pay for those crosses.

GC

No one should have to pay to put up a religious symbol when they don't support that religion.

I do not support nor like all your secular views but, I have to pay to make them part of this government.

GC

---

The crosses in military cemeteries are on government property, tax payers money keeps them up and pay for those crosses.

GC

Yes, but in that case, it's an example of allowing any religion to participate, and there is plenty of room for the headstones. Additionally, the headstone is not the government displaying one religion over another, or supporting one religion in particular, but rather it is a display of the deceased's religion.

If however, the entrance to the graveyard had a cross on the gate and nothing else, that would be a government display of religion (namely, Christianity) over the others. I admit it's a fine (and often strange) line to draw, but the point of separation comes when the focus shifts from the individual to a group of people.

An individual's headstone displaying a cross, even if the government has paid for it and put it there, is clearly (in my opinion anyway) a display of that individual's religious beliefs. The same cannot be said if the cross was on display at the entrance to the graveyard (giving the impression that this is a Christian graveyard) or some public building. The individualism simply isn't there.

FYI, Military headstones are customized to display a symbol of the religion to which the deceased belonged:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...nd_markers

I'm glad you see it that way, but I'm afraid not all do and those headstones will come into play by when someone becomes mad over some religious event. I knew about other religious symbols that are put onto the crosses, however many do not take the time to find out things about our fallen defenders.

GC

[EgoRaptor]

No one should have to pay to put up a religious symbol when they don't support that religion.

I do not support nor like all your secular views but, I have to pay to make them part of this government.

Secularism isn't a religion. You have to pay to fund a secular state because you live in a secular country. You don't have to pay to put up monuments to atheism.

[Polaris]

Is this really any different than the Taliban destroying Buddhist monuments in Afghanistan?

[EgoRaptor]

Is this really any different than the Taliban destroying Buddhist monuments in Afghanistan?

Yes, because the cross is not a historical landmark, it isn't going to be destroyed & legal process was used.