Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(U.S. Supreme Court) Justices to decide if vets can be honored with cross
Washington Times ^ | Monday, May 25, 2009 | Washington Times

Posted on 05/25/2009 2:42:41 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2

Some see it as the universal symbol of sacrifice in World War I, others see it as the undisputed sign of Christianity, but it will be up to the Supreme Court to make a final determination as to whether a 7-foot cross remains standing in a California desert to memorialize war veterans.

The cross was first erected in 1934 in what is now the federally protected Mojave Desert Preserve by a group of veterans whose doctors advised them that the desert heat would help them recover from shell shock.

Veterans today say this war memorial and others like it across the country that use religious symbols are under attack by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). *

"They are not the enemy; they are just dead wrong," says Joe Davis, spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW).

But the civil liberties group says the cross is offensive to Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim and other non-Christian veterans.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: antiamerican; cross; godhaters; lawsuit; luciferliberals; mojavedesert; publicsquare; purge; satanlovers; scotus; veterans; vfw
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last
To: Iam1ru1-2

I’m Jewish and, God help me, I will stand in front of that cross to prevent anyone from removing it. Why? Because Christian Americans died to protect my freedom and I’ll be damned if their memory is so betrayed. Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values and will perish without them.


21 posted on 05/25/2009 4:09:36 PM PDT by andy58-in-nh (You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SECURE AMERICA

THANK YOU!! GOD BLESS!


22 posted on 05/25/2009 4:19:42 PM PDT by fishergirl (My warrior, my soldier, my hero - my son. God bless our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2
America was founded on Christian Principles

I keep reading this argument. It is 2009. A lot of things have changed in 300 years. It makes sense that some things become secular in the face of that.

Established memorials are no different than historic buildings. They should remain as they are and not be subjected to removal, I believe. Going forward, allow for memorials that celebrate the remembered in some other way than their religious beliefs.

23 posted on 05/25/2009 4:25:52 PM PDT by Glenn (Free Venezuela!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

Snivelling little whiney a** liberal morons offend me. Can we please declare them unconstitutional and remove them from the country? Please? In fact, I think we should go back 75 years and remove all references to Eugene Debs, Jimmy Carter, William Ayers, and others like them.

In the same way that others’ practicing their freedom of religion offends this idiots; their practicing their freedom of speech offends me and I belive the government should do something about it. Or I’m going to cry. Really Loud. I affirm (can’t swear; wouldn’t want to offend)

/frustrated sarcastic rant


24 posted on 05/25/2009 4:28:22 PM PDT by IMissPresidentReagan (Does CNN have to wear a condom when covering 0bama or do they carry one, "just in case"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Glenn; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...

“It makes sense that some things become secular in the face of that.”

Why? Time erases Eternal Truth?


25 posted on 05/25/2009 4:29:46 PM PDT by narses (http://www.theobamadisaster.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

well you half right, None of My Rights come from The Constitution, All my Rights come from My Creator (GOD), the Constitution limits the power of government.


26 posted on 05/25/2009 4:31:35 PM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
then can there still be a freedom of the press?
There never has been, in living memory.

The Associated Press was founded in the middle of the Nineteenth Century. And since all journalists are associated, all journalists are "objective" - meaning, their product is a homogeneous promotion of journalism. And since the business of journalism is superficial and negative toward everyone who doesn't go along and get along, that consensus is naturally radical.


27 posted on 05/25/2009 4:34:24 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The conceit of journalistic objectivity is profoundly subversive of democratic principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

“If they want to erect a Star of David that would not be offensive since Christianity’s base is based on the Jewish Scriptures. But no other religion’s symbols.”

Sorry, that’s not what the Constitution says. You either honor all religiions or none. No middle ground. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find any reference whatsoever to America as a Christian nation.

They should keep the cross where it is. But to say no other religions should be honored, besides the ones we deem fit, goes against everything the 1st Amendment stands for.


28 posted on 05/25/2009 4:43:43 PM PDT by Ace of Spades (Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2
America was founded on Christian Principles, not Islamic, Judaic, Buddhist, or any other religion. That's why our coins and bill have In God We Trust on them. And the Pledge allegiance says "Under God".

If they want to erect a Star of David that would not be offensive since Christianity's base is based on the Jewish Scriptures. But no other religion's symbols.


They should leave the Cross alone since it wouldn't offend anyone who's not looking to be offended but this is bad reasoning on a number of levels. The Constitution doesn't make reference to any religion's principles, 'Under God' was added to the Pledge in the 1950s and the 'Star of David' had nothing to do with Biblical Judaism.
29 posted on 05/25/2009 4:51:23 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

I’m not at all advocating violence, but if these commie clowns at the Anti-Christian Liberties Union keep it up they may find themselves on wrong end of the Constitution one of these days, specifically the 2nd Amendment.


30 posted on 05/25/2009 4:51:48 PM PDT by Victory Rocks (Sarah Palin 2012! The right woman, for the right job, at the right time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

Even if it were offensive to non-Christians, how does that constitute a reason to take them down? People don’t have a right to not be offended.


31 posted on 05/25/2009 5:00:48 PM PDT by Jeb21 (www.jewsagainstobama.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses
Why? Time erases Eternal Truth?

Your "Eternal Truth" is not the nation's "Eternal Truth".

32 posted on 05/25/2009 5:01:21 PM PDT by Glenn (Free Venezuela!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
America was founded on Christian Principles
I keep reading this argument. It is 2009. A lot of things have changed in 300 years. It makes sense that some things become secular in the face of that.

Established memorials are no different than historic buildings. They should remain as they are and not be subjected to removal, I believe. Going forward, allow for memorials that celebrate the remembered in some other way than their religious beliefs.

Fine theory you've got there. But you see, there is this little problem. Actually, two problems. For one thing, governments print money, and it is important to governments for its currency to be perceived to have value. Consequently, currency generally does make reference to a deity.

Secondly, there is the finality of death, from which perspective nothing secular is of any value whatsoever. In that context, nothing but a religious symbol can have any pretense of meaning.


33 posted on 05/25/2009 5:01:41 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The conceit of journalistic objectivity is profoundly subversive of democratic principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
In that context, nothing but a religious symbol can have any pretense of meaning.

Then let the church award the symbol.

34 posted on 05/25/2009 5:06:00 PM PDT by Glenn (Free Venezuela!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Glenn

How does an “Eternal Truth” fail to be universal?


35 posted on 05/25/2009 5:19:43 PM PDT by narses (http://www.theobamadisaster.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
Established memorials are no different than historic buildings.

Actually, they are different, but if they were identical, then the particular cross should be maintained exactly as erected with Federal Dollars and placed on the Historical Register.

Their difference lies in the intent and implicit contract made in their establishment. Memorials, including headstones on a grave in a cemetery, are erected and contracted by Federal regulation, to be perpetually maintained. They are maintained because an agreement between the nation and the person memorialized is being fulfilled in that memorial.

If they are not maintained, then the federal government has been negligent in fulfilling its promise to memorialize the person so recognized, hence no longer a memorial.

BTW, anybody offended by the Cross, will not be satiated by its removal, but will further degenerate into demanding respect only for their beliefs. The Cross, unlike modern day Judaism or Islam emphasizes Perfect Eternal Judgment. Those who have a problem with the Cross, have a problem with Judgment and Justice. Some believe they do not need redemption, and God will simply overlook unrighteousness because of something good they might perform, or they believe God will only accept them by their future righteousness in something they seek or perform, but in both cases they fail to find a Perfect Righteousness that may be offered for expiation, redemption, and atonement for any type of sin, which resulted in an initial separation from God's fellowship in perfect righteousness and perfect justice, i.e. His Perfect Holiness.

The bottom line here is that any person offended by the meaning of the Cross has deeper problems with Justice. If our Supreme Court fails to honor the basics of Justice, then they also become part of our national problem with virtue.

36 posted on 05/25/2009 5:28:10 PM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
From the Washington Times article:

The suit worked its way through the system and, in 2004, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the memorial violated the First Amendment clause forbidding an establishment of religion and ordered its removal.

The fact that the SCOTUS took the case means the Ninth Circus Court of Delusions will, once again, be reversed.

37 posted on 05/25/2009 5:33:26 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; george76; ...
...it will be up to the Supreme Court to make a final determination as to whether a 7-foot cross remains standing in a California desert to memorialize war veterans. The cross was first erected in 1934 in what is now the federally protected Mojave Desert Preserve by a group of veterans whose doctors advised them that the desert heat would help them recover from shell shock. Veterans today say this war memorial and others like it across the country that use religious symbols are under attack by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "They are not the enemy; they are just dead wrong," says Joe Davis, spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW). But the civil liberties group says the cross is offensive to Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim and other non-Christian veterans.
Rio de Janiero had better watch its step too.
38 posted on 05/25/2009 5:35:45 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

What is offensive about a Christian symbol to those of other faiths?

Where is the “tolerance” —the respect for “diversity” etc etc etc?


39 posted on 05/25/2009 5:38:57 PM PDT by victim soul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ace of Spades

Nowhere in the constitution, but MANY places in Supreme Court/lower court opinions of history is America called a “Christian Nation”.


40 posted on 05/25/2009 5:56:31 PM PDT by Jeb21 (www.jewsagainstobama.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson