Religious Symbols as War Memorials

[festive1]

There's been a hoopla recently regarding a WWI monument in Maryland. The issue is that the monument is a giant cross, and some non-believer complained about feeling uncomfortable having to drive by it all the time and that it is on state owned land.
Here's an article by an Iraq veteran defending the monument:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/w...story.html
The problem I have is that it's A) on state land and B) why does a monument have to be religious in nature? Granted this was erected in 1925, so they probably weren't thinking about non-believers. But why is it such a big deal to modify or replace the monument to something not religious? This opinion piece tries to say that atheists are unpatriotic and don't want to commemorate our fallen heroes. Which is an inaccurate idea that I've seen a lot recently.

This situation was interestingly juxtaposed by this article which appeared in the Post today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/resi...story.html
Basically, what this second story says is they put up a plaque to commemorate the cremated remains of US soldiers that were dumped into a local Virginia landfill... Evidently, there was a shady funeral home behind this illegal dumping of cremated human remains. This plaque is non-religious in nature.

More importantly, the question I'm posing is:
Should older monuments that are religious in nature be changed/replaced to reflect our current sensibilities?
-or- Should atheists accept that our country's history is deeply religious, and tolerate such monuments?

[kılıç_mehmet]

Well, it's not about whether it's deeply religious or not, it's traditional.

[festive1]

Traditional for Christians... There were people of other religious affiliations that died fighting for the US in WWI as well.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Traditional for Christians... There were people of other religious affiliations that died fighting for the US in WWI as well.

Who, for example?
Like if it we were speaking for the British empire, who had numerous soldiers of other nationalities, races, creeds and religions, yes, perhaps....
But I'm fairly certain that the crushing majority of US soldiers were always from Christian families of European heritage.

[festive1]

You like making me bang my head against the table, don't you?

[Kayenneh]

I say keep the old ones. One shouldn't be so hung up on the first meaning of a symbol, if you think about it as a war memorial, then that's all it is. Though, nowadays they could be more culturally sensitive and go for something with less ties to religion.

[Minimalist]

I wonder how many unanswered prayers are represented here at the American cemetery in Normandy?

Just a great big "Fuck You" from god.

[Brian37]

I don't think you can ever completely eliminate it. But the good weapon to either keep them from putting it up, or make them remove it is to give them two choices

1. Let it all in
or
2. Keep it religion neutral

Many times the theocrats who insist on a pecking order will take it down and falsely claim opression, when the reality is that they want a monopoly of that venue.

But something like the Natinal Cemitary which increasingly is alowing more than simply Christians and Jews burried there, I don't think you will find enough people to agree to remove all those crosses.

But I do think it is reasonable that if one is attempting a monopoly of a given venue you can argue to compete for that venue to, or challenge them to back off and keep it neutral.

I think ultimately in law it will always be a mixed bag and we will take two steps forward and a step back from time to time. But more and more in a mass media society monopolies are going to be harder in a pluralistic society to set up and maintain.

[Faith No More]

I think changing old, insensitive artifacts is coming too close to revisionism for my taste. Our culture hasn't always been pretty, and things like a cross at an old war memorial serve as a reminder of our inability to create inclusionary representations of those being represented. I would be against a cross being put up now at a war memorial, because we are well aware that Christians are only one part of our culture and ought to know that our country shouldn't stand for divisiveness. Crosses at old war memorials, however, do not bother me.

[Brian37]

I wonder how many unanswered prayers are represented here at the American cemetery in Normandy?

Just a great big "Fuck You" from god.

That is certainly a decent refutation of a loving God, he cared so much that he didn't want to prevent, or failed to prevent all those deaths, both military and civilian. I wouldn't hire such an inept or malicious being to baby sit my kid. Expecially when he allegedly asks us to go to our deaths when he can fight his own battles, otherwise it kinda fucks up the concept of "all powerful" as a claimed attribute.

Oh, and I did have a friend who served ine Europe(not the invasion itself) but in Europe in combate during WW2 who was an atheist then, and died an atheist a few years ago.

AND Pat Tilman gave his life as an atheist in the military in Afghanistan.

AND their are pleanty of other atheists in the military.

http://www.maaf.info

So God has got to be in this context a deadbeat skitzo who will even take help for something he could do himself, from even atheists.

Not to mention all the unfortunate Jews who were murdered at the hands of a sicko. But because it was all part of God/Yahweh's divine plan, we shouldn't complain as humans.

How anyone can look at any form of violence and claim a loving god has got to be out of their mind. I know people do it all the time, even people I love. But their logic in allowing themselves to swallow such tripe makes me want to pull my hair out.

No sane parent would baby sit their kid the way God says "I love you" and "I can protect you" in the seliective deadbeat inept mannor this allegid god seems to.