A TBM posted, on FB, a link to this article. From the comments on the article:

"To what reason does an atheist even have concern over any cemetery since they believe that all life ceases with death? A cemetery is a place that shows respect for the hope of life in the future. Once again this just shows how the atheists are about as evil as ISIS."

Why do theists feel so justified in defining what things mean for others? Can't a cemetery simply be a place to remember those that have died as opposed to being a symbol of an afterlife?

It just seems like more hate-mongering by Christians. I would be opposed to the religious symbol simply because it is in a govt funded park. I wonder if it had other symbols (non-Christian) would these people be as happy about it?


http://www.westernjournalism.com/atheists-demand-that-memorial-honoring-these-american-heroes-immediately-remove-this-symbol/

Bashing atheists.... the xtains favorite past time,.

Yep, only Christians fought and died in WWII.

I bet people are dying to get in there...

Why have a Roman execution device on a US memorial?

<snort>

Seems to me everyone needs to chill and respect our constitutional amendments. Atheist don't have anymore rights than anyone else.

This works for me.


FIRST AMENDMENT

FIRST AMENDMENT: AN OVERVIEW

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion.

In a state park (yes, this is at a state park) Atheists should not be allowed to promote their religious views any more than Christians.

The establishment clause of which you speak applies to state parks and crosses as well. This already when to the Supreme Court when it had crosses memorializing fallen police officers removed from road side rest stops.

A cross representing one of the dead buried there is one thing, a cross done in such a way that it seems to imply that "all" are christian is not acceptable on government property.

I am an atheist and in favor of letting them keep the cross. It seems like reasonable freedom of expression in a publicly funded place. They just better not block memorials for soldiers of other persuasions who also give their lives.

They ruled against crosses that honer fallen highway patrol officers at Utah rest stops.

implying that all that gave all are christian is not an appropriate message at a state owned (thus secular) in any government place.

Of COURSE they ruled against the crosses at rest stops in UTAH!!! Mormons HATE crosses...it's the sign of the Catholic Church to them. Y'all know this. The fact that they ruled against it should have been a given.

I'm surprised they didn't want Christus' (Christi?) at the rest stops. Or etched temple towers. Or...well, you get the idea.

Weren't you told how evil the symbol of the cross is? Those of us who converted were told to remove all crosses/crucifixes from our homes...even the one's that had emotional family attachment...because they would invite in Satan? G-d forbid that we WEAR one! Might as well wear Mormon repellant. (Now THAT'S an idea!)

Jes' sayin'.

Reality, it was not Mormons that ruled against the Utah crosses.

Just saying.

Thank goodness we live in America, with lawsuits about religion; in Tunisia a radical group simply kicked over and broke up the 70 year-old headstones of WWII British soldiers who fought against Hitler--and yes, there *was* a cross at the little cemetery, and naturally they pulled that down....

Why does a memorial honoring soldiers have a cross? Why assume all soldiers are christians? Would christians be okay if it had a jewish star on it?

I wonder if the people raising hell about a cross being removed would shout "religious freedom" so loudly if it was the Muslim crescent moon and star rather than a cross.

I like Mark Twain's comment on religious tolerance which I'll paraphrase, "How about moving from religious tolerance to religious indifference." In other words, let's not make a big deal about another person's beliefs and simply be human beings. So what if there's symbolism all around us? I can only be offended if I allow it to happen.

+1

Then you agree, make the monument religious indifferent by removing the Cross. Without the cross the monument would not be promoting a religion and honoring all equally. True religious indifference.

I don't have any problem with other religious symbols - find some fair way to satisfy folks in the best way possible. If it's a cross, then fine. If it's something else, then fine.

I do have a problem with people who try to suppress expression of history and culture (including religious history and culture). I may not share beliefs (or have any beliefs), but let's enjoy the diversity of beliefs and cultures out there. When we start to try to suppress, then we become no better than the religious zealots who try to suppress.

By using a cross to represent everyone that "gave all", they are denying the history, the culture, and the religions of many that gave all but were not Christian.

Why can't they chose a symbol that represents ALL, as in EVERYONE, that gave all? It is not indifferent to imply that all who gave all where Christian when they were not.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/2014 12:25AM by MJ.

And what exactly would you choose to be all-inclusive? I guarantee that whatever you think of, you will not include everyone and there would be some kind of disagreement. There will always be someone to disagree.

If you are in Italy, you will see lots of crosses. If you go to Israel, you will see Stars of David. If you go to Saudi Arabia, you will see crescents. If you go to Thailand, you may see Buddha statues. If you go to India, you'll see the likeness of hundreds of gods/goddesses. Does it represent everyone? No. Does it represent the majority and reflect a history/culture? Yes.

Would it really bother you that much if you went to a cemetery in Israel and saw a Star of David posted if there were a handful of Christians, Muslims, or even Atheists in there? This kind of thing never bothered me personally and I just don't understand how it can bother people so much.

exodus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And what exactly would you choose to be
> all-inclusive? I guarantee that whatever you
> think of, you will not include everyone and there
> would be some kind of disagreement. There will
> always be someone to disagree.

The American flag; the emblem/logo/crest of each military branch; the state flag, symbol, flower, what have you...these and like things would be appropriate.

The cross is obviously inappropriate. And really, it should be the Christians who object the loudest, since their symbol is being mixed-up with the military. (WWJD? = Bomb Hiroshima...ya, that's it.)



> If you are in Italy, you will see lots of crosses.
> If you go to Israel, you will see Stars of David.
> If you go to Saudi Arabia, you will see
> crescents. If you go to Thailand, you may see
> Buddha statues. If you go to India, you'll see
> the likeness of hundreds of gods/goddesses. Does
> it represent everyone? No. Does it represent the
> majority and reflect a history/culture? Yes.


Irrelevant. America is not these places and has not a religious founding. Despite the extreme few with very loud voices, America is a secular country with a pluralistic religious culture, and enjoys church/state clarity. Again, despite the tiny minority with the very large megaphones.

The monument would be indifferent if it did not promote Christianity.

"To what reason does an atheist even have concern over any cemetery since they believe that all life ceases with death? A cemetery is a place that shows respect for the hope of life in the future. Once again this just shows how the atheists are about as evil as ISIS."

Atheists are like the Evil ISIS.

If that's not an Irony bomb then I don't know what is.

You do realize that only a narrow band of theists are represented by a cross, don't you?

Jews, Mormons and many other American theists who died in 9/11 or the ensuing wars do not feel represented by the cross. Since this is a secular memorial paid for by the government, it should not be hijacked by Christianists who have to shove their religion down everyone else's throat.

I'm so tired of Evangelicals ploppign their brand on everything and then whining when people naturally object to their usurpation.

Crosses on non-believers' graves are a form of celebrating Christian privilege in America.

Ever wonder why we don't have straight parades or white history month? At least partially because a privileged class celebrating its privilege is distasteful.

Here's what gets me...

The very people who are so gung ho about having their cross on everything get pissed if the same rules apply to any other religion or ideology.

For example if you say that:


All the fallen soldiers who die in the months of
Jan-Mar get a cross
Apr-Jun get a star of David
Jul-Sept get a crescent
Oct-Dec get an Ohm symbol
(you could break it down to include more religious symbols)

I've not talked to a Christian who doesn't get offended when I suggest this. The Christian solider might get a symbol that isn't Christian! Yet somehow they don't seem to extrapolate that is exactly what they want to do to everyone else.

The point is, if you would not accept the same treatment if it were another religion than yours, you don't understand what everyone is upset about.

so christers have special rights to put up their idiotic symbology on government property ?

I agree with "doubtnot", having said that, I don't really like this WJ website. My TBM brother always "likes" articles from this website that are normally ridiculous.

From what I understand there are something like 1200 religions practiced in the USA. Letting them all place monuments at graveyards would end up leaving little room for graves at most graveyards.

It would also favor the wealthy religions, once more granting favor to the privileged in supporting their religious views.

How bout leaving the religious recruitment at home so those grieving the loss of their loved ones can go grieve in peace rather than be barraged by b_illboards for Christ, Ala or what ever.

Individual statements about the individual's religious beliefs on their headstones is one thing, implying that all that gave all are Christians is quite another.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/2014 12:19AM by MJ.

Funny that a TBM shared this article since Mormons are against using the symbol of the cross.

I suspect they are watching fox news and buying into the idea of a "war on religion". They consider themselves Christians so they side with anything they think promotes Christianity.

I think the artist did this to intentionally bait the litigation and provoke the debate. Any official responsible for public art knows the litany of litigation on this matter.

Something similar has been done by the City of Sandy with an awful piece of art installed to memorialize veterans. It actually seems to glorify War. Waiting for the ACLU or other group to find it.

I can understand the objections when the art has been in place for decades, but that is not the case here.

I served on a federal commission that reviewed art. Responsible officials know that society has changed.

Given the LDS Vampire-like aversion towards the Christian Cross, I do wonder why they get themselves so riled up on the matter. Though many in the LDS community can only be happy when they are offended.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/2014 03:26AM by unabashed.

They are morons....

After looking at the article again, I see there were a lot of comments from atheists. It was good to see an opposing view to the Christian-privilege mindset.

I agree with the poster "Miss". He/she is a voice of reason. Seemes like an awful lot of hate coming from those loving Christians.