By It is amazing how long this issue has been dragging out:
A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that a San Diego war memorial marked by a four-story-tall Christian cross on public land violates the U.S. constitutional ban on government endorsement of religion.
Capping a legal dispute brewing since the late 1980s, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower-court decision that threw out a legal challenge to the hilltop cross brought on behalf of Jewish war veterans.
The three-judge panel concluded in its 47-page opinion that the U.S. “district court erred in declaring the memorial to be primarily nonsectarian and granting summary judgment in favor of the government and the memorial’s supporters.”A group that filed a brief on behalf of 25 members of Congress supporting the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial, the American Center for Law and Justice, condemned the appeals court ruling as “a judicial slap in the face to our military veterans.”
The appeals court, recognizing volatile feelings generated on both sides by the case, wrote that America’s war veterans can and should be honored, “but without the imprimatur of state-endorsed religion.” [Associated Press]
What I don’t understand is that Arlington National Cemetery which is federal property has crosses and other religious symbols all over it on fallen servicemembers graves. So how this not a federal endorsement of religion as well?
5:21 pm on January 5th, 2011 1
"What I don’t understand is that Arlington National Cemetery which is federal property has crosses and other religious symbols all over it on fallen servicemembers graves. So how this not a federal endorsement of religion as well?"
Arlington – each person choosing a personal gravestone that shows their own religion.
San Diego – government erects HUGE Christian symbol. It's not any particular person's gravestone, just a gigantic symbol of Christianity.
If the government wants to make a war memorial that honors veterans, it can do so without resorting to such a blatant endorsement of a single religion over others.
6:40 pm on January 5th, 2011 2
How does it hurt anyone? Ridiculous waste of time and lawyer's fees.
6:58 pm on January 5th, 2011 3
Come on GI Korea your stretching it a bit here. It doesn't take much though to differentiate between the individual chosen religious symbols at Arlington vs the ginormous Christian cross at San Diego.
7:55 pm on January 5th, 2011 4
Maybe if they had a cross and a star of david there instead of just the cross, it would have stood the constitutionality test since there's probably no Buddhists or Muslims memorialized there. I'll have to look up the back story on this, but why such a huge cross anyway? Seems like a lack of foresight for the memorial's designers screwed the pooch on this one…
9:58 pm on January 5th, 2011 5
Neither the local, state, nor federal governments has any business to build a cross on a public war memorial. How would this make local Jewish veterans feel? As noted above, there's a big difference between a Christian soldier's family electing to mark a deceased vet's grave with a cross, Star of David, etc., and building a four-story cross over a public monument, which should be intended to be inclusive of all vets, regardless of religion.
10:22 pm on January 5th, 2011 6
Good decision. Organized Religion needs to get back in the closet where it belongs.
11:13 pm on January 5th, 2011 7
As others have said, how can you really profess to not understand the difference between a cross or star of david above the grave of an individual in Arlington and a huge Christian symbol erected on public land as a memorial to "all." Crosses are not memorials to all, they are specific religious symbols important only to Christians. As a former Air Forcer and an atheist that "memorial" not only means nothing to me it actually devalues my beliefs and puts other's ahead of mine.
How about a nice Wall with names, a bunch of guys lifting a flag, a sword with a torch, a fountain with stars (all examples I can find in the DC area) or something else that is inclusive of all no matter what their specific religious beliefs or non-beliefs.
11:22 pm on January 5th, 2011 8
“What I don’t understand is that Arlington National Cemetery which is federal property has crosses and other religious symbols all over it on fallen servicemembers graves. So how this not a federal endorsement of religion as well?”
Come on, GI Korea. You used to be cool.
12:47 am on January 6th, 2011 9
#7 "Organized religion needs to get back in the closet where it belongs."
Gays, atheist, first. Then women BACK in the kitchen.
Guess that "tolerance thing" didn't last long.
2:31 am on January 6th, 2011 10
Dear Lord,
Please save me from your followers,
Amen
3:49 am on January 6th, 2011 11
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by GIKorea, mailcome. mailcome said: Court Rules <b>San Diego</b> Cross Must Come Down | ROK Drop http://goo.gl/fb/R0waG [...]
9:59 am on January 6th, 2011 12
We could change the flag. Instead of fifty stars we could have one cross. And then we could amend the preamble to the Constitiution: change "we the people" to "we the Christians". Our republican friends would be glad to read that on the house floor.
10:12 am on January 6th, 2011 13
Funny how non-Christians seem to hate crosses unless they're stuck in jars of some homo's urine…
Then they're good enough for tax dollars to pay for…
10:55 am on January 6th, 2011 14
Set,
I like mine hung upside down.
11:01 am on January 6th, 2011 15
Actually I have nothing against your cross. Just keep it in your house or church or around your neck and keep it off my public land. Pretty simple, really. Except for cross worshippers who seem to be unable to fathom someone who doesn't think just like they do.
Kinda feel sorry for you.
12:49 pm on January 6th, 2011 16
A cross has stood on this hill since 1913 with the the current cross at this war memorial since 1954 so it isn't like it is something new. Also it is on defense dept. property so if this cross has to come down should the chapels on military bases come down as well along with getting rid of the chaplains?
I think Leon would like that.
Now that more info is coming out on the decision the court didn't even order the cross removed, but rather have further proceedings on how to modify it to meet constitutional muster:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/05/local/la-…
It is looking like this will likely go to the Supreme Court.
1:06 pm on January 6th, 2011 17
Modifying the memorial to be non-discriminatory would be preferable. I'm not against religion, but I'm very much for equal representation and very much against government sanctioning any religion (that includes atheism). And the whole anti-chaplain corps thing is a red hearing. The military symbol of the Chaplain corps is a cross same as the symbol for the infantry are to crossed rifles and signal is the crossed flags. All on-base chapels / religious-centers are considered non-denominational and any externally displayed cross's are symbols of the chaplain corps and not representative of the christian religion. All newly constructed religious centers do not have externally displayed religious symbols (including the chaplain corps cross).
This isn't about pro / anti christian anything, its about the government being seen to not support one religion over another. Especially with the wars currently going on.
1:44 pm on January 6th, 2011 18
17, someotherguy, Are you implying the current wars are of a religious nature? Just wondering, because so much effort has been made to state they are not religious in nature, at least on our side.
Obviously the other side is religion driven.
To the OTHERS on here, how is the religion of Atheism doing. You're starting to sound more like the Christians and Muslims every day.
1:52 pm on January 6th, 2011 19
Wish there was a way to recommend post #18…
2:05 pm on January 6th, 2011 20
What a joke. Christianity has been part of USA history and tradition like the case of the foundation of the USA by the pilgrims escaping from religious oppression in England. So what is next? Change the dollar bill erasing any reference to religion like the phrase “In God we trust”?
2:10 pm on January 6th, 2011 21
@18,
The wars are not of a religious nature, but the enemy wants people to think they are. The leaders of the various terrorist groups are about as religious as the leadership of the Catholic church, or a GOP congressmen. That is to say they go through all the motions and say their religious, but they don't believe a word their saying and ~never~ follow their own preaching. When was the last time you heard of a senior terrorist leader strapping a bomb onto their chest and blowing themselves up? With what their saying it would be the quickest way to heaven with their eternal existence of pleasure with all those girls.
What is really going on is you have a small group of men who happen to hold positions of power. Those positions have religious names and are associated with a religion but their still political positions. These men need manpower and followers to pursue their agenda, the best pool for them to utilize are disillusioned / despondent Muslims. By telling this group what they want to hear and making promises they want to believe you can control them and have them do your bidding. In order to keep this following under control they ~must~ believe there is an enemy out there trying to kill them or worse "convert" them. By telling their follower's that the evil "west" is just "Christians" trying to attack the Muslim *faithful* they can abuse their control of the strongest power known to humankind, the power of irrational belief. Under the power of irrational belief otherwise good people would do anything you tell them to, even murder little children.
So you see, if those followers were to start to realize that there is no "holy way" of Christian vs Muslim, that their own handlers were the ones perpetrating the myth, they would start to leave and the terrorist leadership would have its power broken. They must never let this happen and so any sign no matter how small of the USA support the christian religion over others will be twisted into another "holy war" slogan. As for us, we have to do everything we can to deprive them of those signs and force them to use out right lie's. Its easier to dispel baseless lies then half-truths.
2:36 pm on January 6th, 2011 22
#21, that was a good explanation. I agree with — ah hell, 99.9% of it.
I would have said 100%, but I simply can't do it.
1:07 am on January 7th, 2011 23
To add to what #23 said, "Under God" was added to the Constitution in 1954 during the Red Scare. And he's right in that the Constitution of the United States of America, the very backbone of the country, does not mention Christianity, a god or even deities in general. The only mention of religion in the Constitution is in the First Amendment/Establishment Clause.
Simply put, freedom of all religions has been an integral part of the United States of America since its founding, however, explicit government promotion of religion, especially endorsement of a single religion at the expense of others (as is often the case with Christianity), is a fairly recent phenomenon, whether it be in the Red Scare of the 1950s, or the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) during through the 2000s and 2010s.
1:41 am on January 7th, 2011 24
“In God we trust” went on our coins in the 1860s, on the dollar bill in 1955. It became our official motto in 1956. It is also the motto of the state of Florida. Incidentally, “En Dios confiamos” is the motto of Nicaragua.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
The constitution doesn’t say a word about God or Christianity.
2:07 am on January 7th, 2011 25
Evoking the name of God or any deity in a public affair is not a sign of endorsement of a certain religion but a tradition that most civilizations in the world has been adopting for millenniums.
Establishing powers always faced problem of legitimacy and evoking the name of a deity or a supreme being was the traditional way to justify their power before the people. Even today kings around the world are crowned by a priest or a religious leader under a religious ceremony and in the EUA the newly elected president swears to defend the constitution of the country placing his hand in a bible, even though the constitution does not require so.
In that sense, if the North American continent was colonized by the Arabs, Mr.Washington and his predecessors would have sworn to defend the constitution in name of Ala, if colonized by the Greeks in name of Zeus, if colonized by Koreans (Joson dynasty) in name of Hanunim, which is the way the Koreans refer to a supreme being.
So, yes, Christianity is part of USA political, historical and social tradition and it is sad to notice that in the USA freedom of religion is achieved by restricting the religion instead of teaching coexistence and tolerance.
May the constitution protect America, because God is not allowed anymore.
2:28 am on January 7th, 2011 26
"So, yes, Christianity is part of USA political, historical and social tradition and it is sad to notice that in the USA freedom of religion is achieved by restricting the religion instead of teaching coexistence and tolerance."
Well officially, the Constitution of the United States of America says that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Officially, the United States government is to be neutral in matters regarding religion, neither demoting it (like liberals) nor promoting it (like conservatives). So, freedom of religion is achived in the United States of America not through government intervention, but the lack thereof. It appears, it is best this way, because any other way, the USA would become a religious theocracy (God forbid, no pun intended), or a communist/socialist dictatorship (Marx forbid, no pun intended).
3:37 am on January 7th, 2011 27
#16
The land was city property until 2006 when the federal government took possession under eminent domain.
4:02 am on January 7th, 2011 28
#25
"… it is sad to notice that in the USA freedom of religion is achieved by restricting the religion instead of teaching coexistence and tolerance."
Religion is not restricted in the USA, but there is a balance that must be achieved. We must not single out any religion for promotion or persecution. We must also have freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
Religious groups have a lot of leeway in the USA. They have tax exemptions and are pretty much left alone as long as they don't violate basic laws of society. Though some still try to cover up their animal sacrifices, polygamy and pedophilia.
6:38 am on January 7th, 2011 29
The USA is facing a very unique and disturbing age now: the age where majorities are sacrificed in order to please the minorities.
For ages majorities ruled against the minorities imposing their will upon them, but under the rule of democracy, minorities were allowed to speak out against the majority and now its kind of retribution time for them.
So now in the USA it sucks being white, intelligent, having all your legs and arms, being rich, handsome, man, Christian, straight, eat meat, don’t like animals, etc…
It’s the tyranny of the minorities.
7:03 am on January 7th, 2011 30
Good one, Dr. Yu.
BTW… God is kinda real. Christianity lost its way centuries ago.
10:03 am on January 7th, 2011 31
Dr.Yu 25, the founders were Christian, some seriously, others nominally. But they didn't put any oath by God in the constitution. The federal convention, with George Washington in the chair, said this about the President of the United States:
'Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." '
Nothing about God or Christ. Read it for yourself in section 2 of article I of the constitution.
12:25 pm on January 7th, 2011 32
Glans,
Please go to youtube and watch Obama swearing before the capitol that he will protect the constitution of the USA.
12:45 pm on January 7th, 2011 33
You are right Chickenhead, the problem with Christianity was always the christians not Christ himself.
4:47 am on January 8th, 2011 34
All this Christian hating and complaining dwelling on the negative reminds me of an old tune with a Sinners (that's all of us, by the way) refrain that maybe we should remember:
We are poor little lambs
Who have lost our way.
Baa! Baa! Baa!
We are little black sheep
Who have gone astray.
Baa! Baa! Baa!
Gentlemen songsters off on a spree
Damned from here to eternity
God have mercy on such as we.
Baa! Baa! Baa!
7:34 am on January 8th, 2011 35
Dr.Yu 31, Presidents voluntarily add, "so help me God," and nobody stops them. Nobody interferes. What a fine example of the first amendment in action. But go ahead and read section 2 of article I of the constitution. Nothing about God. Not a word.
10:46 am on January 8th, 2011 36
Glans,
You should stop trolling and do some research.
Why don’t you go back to Youtube and see what other presidents of the USA like Bush, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Nixon, Eisenhower, etc also did “voluntarily” on their oath of office before the chief of the Supreme Court?
Why do I have this strange sensation that they just repeated what the chief of the Supreme Court said to them?
Did you know that other officers like the vice president, the members of the Cabinet, and all other civil and military officers and federal employees other than the President must finish their oaths with the words “so help me God’?
The president of the USA is not required to finish his oath with those words but than please, could you explain me why all those presidents were instructed to repeat those words? I’m not an American so you must be better prepared to explain this than me.
Oh, you are right, the constitution says nothing about the president taking his oath in name of God, but than again, why the chief of the supreme court instruct them to do so?
If Christianity was never part of the USA political, social and historical tradition than why all those people are required to take their oath in name of God?
11:07 am on January 8th, 2011 37
Dr. Yu, they're not required to swear by God. And they aren't required to have the chief justice administer the oath. The new presidents choose this arrangement. The justice recites the words the new president wants him to recite. Then the new president recites them. It's all prearranged.
The constitution says:
‘Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” ‘
See? the new presidents don't even have to swear. They can just affirm. But they choose to swear by God. And nobody stops them. They're free to swear by God! Ain't liberty sweet?
3:04 pm on January 8th, 2011 38
The US Supreme Court has ruled that the pledge of allegiance, the "In God we trust" on money, & similar situations are more of a patriotic observance rather than a religious observance & I suspect that the San Diego cross will be considered likewise. I think that there have been similar situations where the few square feet of land that the cross was on was sold to a private group to shut up the American Communist Lawyers Union (ACLU).
3:41 am on January 13th, 2011 39
Why can't The USA still be a christian nataion, Other countrys are muslimus country. They will take over soon enough. Even when I was not a christian I had respect for others and what they belived. I feel sorry for God! What other reglion tells us to love our enameies. Christ said "I am the way the truth and the life no one comes to the father but through me. Lord please come back soon! and forgive us for we know not what we do!