Man sues over Mohave Desert Cross

[Patriot]

http://hi-caliber.blogspot.com/2009/06/one-man-files-suit-to-take-down.html


http://onthedocket.org/articles/2009/02/23/justices-agree-hear-mojave-desert-cross-case-feb-23-2009






When the fall term begins, one of the most prominent cases before the court will regard the Mojave Desert Cross, a memorial to World War I veterans that an appeals court declared unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union and a former National Park Service employee have been challenging the cross' continued presence on national parkland for nearly eight years. A cross has stood on the site since 1934, when a local chapter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars erected it atop an outcropping known as Sunrise Rock.

Congress has transferred ownership of the land on which it sits to a private party.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals twice said the cross must come down. I invalidated the 2004 congressionally approved land transfer, saying that "carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast preserve -- like a donut hole with cross atop it -- will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement" of the religious symbol.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/08/sotomayor-faces-challenging-cases-new-supreme-court-justice/



Wow, he's been fighting this for eight years? Seriously? Perhaps he needs a hobby?

Gee, I wonder how much plywood and nails it will take to cover up all those crosses at Arlington? :rolleyes:


http://www.terragalleria.com/pictures-subjects/crosses/picture.crosses.usca43429.html

http://www.terragalleria.com/pictures-subjects/crosses/picture.crosses.usca43432.html

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/white-crosses.htm

[LisaM22]

how long did some have to fight to have the wican symbol on their tombstone, separation of church and state is a fight worth fighting, the government should not be endorsing any one religion over any other


as for Sotomayor, I am not sure she is for separation of church and state, that is yet to be seen, I have a feeling the religious right will be happy with her votes

[Details]

Separation of church and state was one of the major reasons this country was founded, people fleeing religious persecution, running away from a country where there was one religion with privileges the other religions didn't have.


If I built a big huge Jewish monument on gov't land, a big old Muslim monument to Mohammed on gov't land, a nice flying spagetti monster Holy Meatball - anyone think the government would be fine with it, and just sell me the land?

[LisaM22]

Separation of church and state was one of the major reasons this country was founded, people fleeing religious persecution, running away from a country where there was one religion with privileges the other religions didn't have.


If I built a big huge Jewish monument on gov't land, a big old Muslim monument to Mohammed on gov't land, a nice flying spagetti monster Holy Meatball - anyone think the government would be fine with it, and just sell me the land?

exactly, if one is allowed all should be allowed, we will just have a pile of religious monuments, with all religions competing for the attention

[Hey Paula]

The cross in the desert symbolizes sacrifice. Like the crosses in Arlington National Cemetery, it doesn't contain an image of Jesus. Hence, it is not a religious symbol and is therefore not in violation of separation of church and state.

IMO

[LisaM22]

The cross in the desert symbolizes sacrifice. Like the crosses in Arlington National Cemetery, it doesn't contain an image of Jesus. Hence, it is not a religious symbol and is therefore not in violation of separation of church and state.

IMO

then other religions should be able to put up their symbols as well - all or nothing - have to be fair

[Brentwood]

The cross in the desert symbolizes sacrifice. Like the crosses in Arlington National Cemetery, it doesn't contain an image of Jesus. Hence, it is not a religious symbol and is therefore not in violation of separation of church and state.

IMO

The cross stands for Jesus dieing on a cross as a savior rising him up to the status of g-d. Not all believe that way.

[Brentwood]

exactly, if one is allowed all should be allowed, we will just have a pile of religious monuments, with all religions competing for the attention

Well said!

[LisaM22]

Separation of church and state was one of the major reasons this country was founded, people fleeing religious persecution, running away from a country where there was one religion with privileges the other religions didn't have.


If I built a big huge Jewish monument on gov't land, a big old Muslim monument to Mohammed on gov't land, a nice flying spagetti monster Holy Meatball - anyone think the government would be fine with it, and just sell me the land?

exactly....

[Hey Paula]

SCOTUS Blog

Analysis: A Case of Disappearing Issues

EXCERPT:

Justice Scalia spent considerable effort in trying to keep the argument on the constitutionality of the cross’s display. He said the government had no obligation, just because it put up a monument to one faith, to have other monuments on the same site to other faiths. In fact, he said, the Mojave cross was a commemoration of the service of soldiers of all faiths, including Jews and Muslims. Scalia said it was “outrageous” to suggest otherwise.

Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., suggested that the Court should take the government at its word, that Congress had washed its hands of the cross and had remedied whatever Establishment Clause problem its presence on public land had caused. Echoing the Solicitor General’s core argument, Alito said Congress’s only interest was in maintaining a war memorial.

More at link: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-a-case-of-disappearing-issues/

[LisaM22]

SCOTUS Blog

Analysis: A Case of Disappearing Issues

EXCERPT:

Justice Scalia spent considerable effort in trying to keep the argument on the constitutionality of the cross’s display. He said the government had no obligation, just because it put up a monument to one faith, to have other monuments on the same site to other faiths. In fact, he said, the Mojave cross was a commemoration of the service of soldiers of all faiths, including Jews and Muslims. Scalia said it was “outrageous” to suggest otherwise.

Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., suggested that the Court should take the government at its word, that Congress had washed its hands of the cross and had remedied whatever Establishment Clause problem its presence on public land had caused. Echoing the Solicitor General’s core argument, Alito said Congress’s only interest was in maintaining a war memorial.

More at link: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-a-case-of-disappearing-issues/

how crazy that he argues it is ok for a monument for one faith, but not others... crazy, he admits right there that it is a monument of faith? he blew it

[Tracian]

I think that cross is part of history, much like the Missions in California, that are on government land, and do have Christian symbols.

I am a Wiccan, and honestly find these lawsuits, just like the one about the cross in San Diego a waste of court time.

I mean, should the road side memorials put up with crosses on government land be removed?

[Tracian]

I disagree, they set a precedent, the government sold a small piece of land in the middle of government land for the sole purpose of violating the law, that is wrong, all they had to do was allow other religious monuments or remove it, problem solved


Why should they have to remove it? If the land is privately owned then it is not government land, regardless of the reasons it was sold, it is not for anyone to tell a private person what they can or cannot erect on their property if it does not violate codes of that county or state.

But back to the other point, should all historic sites be devoid of any religious symbolism? If so, then why are there not law suits to tear down the Missions in CA? If religious symbols should not be allowed on government land, then those that put up crosses on road sides, should be fined.

What about government own cemeteries? Should all the crosses be removed, as well as, other symbols?

Part of freedom is tolerance, and so far I am not seeing a whole lot of that.

[LisaM22]

I think that cross is part of history, much like the Missions in California, that are on government land, and do have Christian symbols.

I am a Wiccan, and honestly find these lawsuits, just like the one about the cross in San Diego a waste of court time.

I mean, should the road side memorials put up with crosses on government land be removed?

I disagree, they set a precedent, the government sold a small piece of land in the middle of government land for the sole purpose of violating the law, that is wrong, all they had to do was allow other religious monuments or remove it, problem solved - the cross is not the problem, to most it means death, someone died here or was buried here, but when you make a monument and try to bypass the law, that is a different story altogether

btw, it is not even the original cross, it has been replaced over the years many times....

[LisaM22]

Why should they have to remove it? If the land is privately owned then it is not government land, regardless of the reasons it was sold, it is not for anyone to tell a private person what they can or cannot erect on their property if it does not violate codes of that county or state.

But back to the other point, should all historic sites be devoid of any religious symbolism? If so, then why are there not law suits to tear down the Missions in CA? If religious symbols should not be allowed on government land, then those that put up crosses on road sides, should be fined.

What about government own cemeteries? Should all the crosses be removed, as well as, other symbols?

Part of freedom is tolerance, and so far I am not seeing a whole lot of that.

one small cross per soldier is not a issue unless the soldiers family whats another religions symbol imo

the problem is the government admits it is a religious symbol, they should now have to allow others, sell others small plots of land if need be, they have to be fair and not favor any one religion

I am fine with leaving it there, just as long as others are allowed to place their religious monuments there as well if they wish


as for raod side crosses, if they fined someone for putting up a wican symbol, then yes they should do the same for a christian symbol, have to be fair, allow all or none

you said "Part of freedom is tolerance, and so far I am not seeing a whole lot of that."

well we are not seeing tolerance of other religions, that is my point, all or none

when the gov says "He said the government had no obligation, just because it put up a monument to one faith, to have other monuments on the same site to other faiths."

then something is wrong with that picture imo

[Tracian]

I disagree, they set a precedent, the government sold a small piece of land in the middle of government land for the sole purpose of violating the law, that is wrong, all they had to do was allow other religious monuments or remove it, problem solved - the cross is not the problem, to most it means death, someone died here or was buried here, but when you make a monument and try to bypass the law, that is a different story altogether

btw, it is not even the original cross, it has been replaced over the years many times....


The Missions have been restored as well.

I just don't see the issue, those symbols were placed long ago originally, they should remain, as a reminder of how far we have come, and how far we will continue to move forward.

[Hey Paula]

Intolerance breeds intolerance.

[LisaM22]

Intolerance breeds intolerance.

exactly, all or none...

[Tracian]

exactly, all or none...



I think the point I am making is that these particular symbols are part of history; where this country was at one time, much like California's history is deep within religious founding.

We teach, and even have field trips to Missions, and actually teach a bit about that religion in public schools; as it is necessary to understand the history of California, why some things have happened in California.

The same with these crosses; they IMO, are not so much about religion, they are about the 'time' and the motivation that they were placed.

I do disagree with the Ten Commandments being on display on a monument in a court house; UNLESS that is an historic marker, again offering insight into the our country as it once was.

Why is there not an outcry, seriously, about our elected leaders swearing their oath of office on a religious book? Shouldn't that be changed to swearing on the Constitution?

IMO, the time these symbols were placed is the issue, not the symbol itself.

[LisaM22]

http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2009/10/07/california-mojave-desert-cross-case/

this is what Justice Antonin Scalia had to say about it

"“It’s erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead,” Scalia said of the cross that the Veterans of Foreign Wars built 75 years ago atop an outcropping in the Mojave National Preserve. “What would you have them erect?…Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Muslim half moon and star?”"

[Tracian]

http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2009/10/07/california-mojave-desert-cross-case/

this is what Justice Antonin Scalia had to say about it

"“It’s erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead,” Scalia said of the cross that the Veterans of Foreign Wars built 75 years ago atop an outcropping in the Mojave National Preserve. “What would you have them erect?…Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Muslim half moon and star?”"


Exactly, 75 years ago, the Christian faith was the basic accepted faith of the time; it is logical and historically correct for that symbol to honor those fallen at that time.

Again, like the Missions, at that time, it was the accepted religion, and should be historically remembered as such.

These are historical monuments, not a current social commentary.

[LisaM22]

I think the point I am making is that these particular symbols are part of history; where this country was at one time, much like California's history is deep within religious founding.

We teach, and even have field trips to Missions, and actually teach a bit about that religion in public schools; as it is necessary to understand the history of California, why some things have happened in California.

The same with these crosses; they IMO, are not so much about religion, they are about the 'time' and the motivation that they were placed.

I do disagree with the Ten Commandments being on display on a monument in a court house; UNLESS that is an historic marker, again offering insight into the our country as it once was.

Why is there not an outcry, seriously, about our elected leaders swearing their oath of office on a religious book? Shouldn't that be changed to swearing on the Constitution?

IMO, the time these symbols were placed is the issue, not the symbol itself.

because they can swear on any book, it is not required that it be just one book.... part of the all or none I was referring too - some people feel they can not lie when swearing to their religious book, that is why we allow it, not sure it has helped much, but maybe it has - some swear on the bible just so others will "think" they wont lie, see that in court all the time

[Tracian]

because they can swear on any book, it is not required that it be just one book.... part of the all or none I was referring too - some people feel they can not lie when swearing to their religious book, that is why we allow it, not sure it has helped much, but maybe it has

But that is a government office, religion should have no part in the oath on takes to protect or serve in it.

I only mention it, because IMO, it is hypocritical to excuse the taking the oath of office while one's hand rests on a religious book; but to be up in arms about historical crosses, because they are a religious symbol.

In both cases these are more a matter of tradition and history than religion.

[LisaM22]

But that is a government office, religion should have no part in the oath on takes to protect or serve in it.

I only mention it, because IMO, it is hypocritical to excuse the taking the oath of office while one's hand rests on a religious book; but to be up in arms about historical crosses, because they are a religious symbol.

In both cases these are more a matter of tradition and history than religion.

all or none, if they allowed all religions it is not a issue, the government can not endorse any one religion over any other. it would be hypocritical to allow one and not the others

[Tracian]

all or none, if they allowed all religions it is not a issue, the government can not endorse any one religion over any other. it would be hypocritical to allow one and not the others


Protecting a historical symbol is not the same as endorsing a religion.

[LisaM22]

Protecting a historical symbol is not the same as endorsing a religion.

not allowing others religious symbols is, if a family of a soldier that died wants their religious symbol next to the cross, then it should be allowed

the idea is not to take down the cross, but to make it clear that if all religions are not supported equally by the government then none should be supported - all or none

[Tracian]

not allowing others religious symbols is, if a family of a soldier that died wants their religious symbol next to the cross, then it should be allowed

the idea is not to take down the cross, but to make it clear that if all religions are not supported equally by the government then none should be supported - all or none


This cross was not put up last week, it was put up 75 years ago, which is the issue, it is more historical than religious.

If this cross was put up last week...then I would agree...but again, this is a part of history, much like California's Missions.

[LisaM22]

This cross was not put up last week, it was put up 75 years ago, which is the issue, it is more historical than religious.

If this cross was put up last week...then I would agree...but again, this is a part of history, much like California's Missions.

actually the last cross was not put up 75 years ago, it was replaced recently, so it is newer then that, but I do not care how long ago it was, if family of the dead soldiers would like their symbol up as well I say put it up, sell em a little plot of land and let them put their symbol up, their loved one gave their life for this country, think that is enough to grant them this request

[Tracian]

actually the last cross was not put up 75 years ago, it was replaced recently, so it is newer then that, but I do not care how long ago it was, if family of the dead soldiers would like their symbol up as well I say put it up, sell em a little plot of land and let them put their symbol up, their loved one gave their life for this country, think that is enough to grant them this request


You are seeing this as a religious symbol, I believe it is a part of history, even if it was replaced, the original was placed there 75 years ago.

Missions in CA are also refurbished, but that does not make them less of a historical monument.

I respect you Lisa, but we are at an impasse...so we are going to have to agree to disagree.

[LisaM22]

You are seeing this as a religious symbol, I believe it is a part of history, even if it was replaced, the original was placed there 75 years ago.

Missions in CA are also refurbished, but that does not make them less of a historical monument.

I respect you Lisa, but we are at an impasse...so we are going to have to agree to disagree.

I do not see it as a religious symbol as I posted up thread, but the courts seem to, as the quote I made up thread and if that is the case then other religions need to be allowed to have their religious symbols above their dead in the same manner - I do agree with you, this one we will have to agree to disagree on, I think if they allow one, they should all be allowed, not gonna change my mind on that - jmho

[ninetoes]

What do we do with cities like "Las Cruces", which literally means "the crosses", whose symbol is 3 crosses standing side by side? Should they be forced to remove the symbol from all of their govt buildings?

[EMAA]

What do we do with cities like "Las Cruces", which literally means "the crosses", whose symbol is 3 crosses standing side by side? Should they be forced to remove the symbol from all of their govt buildings?

They would have to start at the White House. Sad, if ya ask me.

Probably won't be long before that becomes the next big rally cry.


jmo

[FoxySly]

Exactly, 75 years ago, the Christian faith was the basic accepted faith of the time; it is logical and historically correct for that symbol to honor those fallen at that time.

Again, like the Missions, at that time, it was the accepted religion, and should be historically remembered as such.

These are historical monuments, not a current social commentary.

IA with you Tracian.

As a genealogist & history buff there is no way religion can be separated. And those who left their mark long ago in history well it's just part of it, history.

There are some christians out here that tried to get all the crosses off the sides of the highways. There's an average of 1 per mile. In one spot there are 5 where a whole family lost their lives to a driver in a hurry & passed where he shouldn't have.

I was against having them removed. Not only do they not bother me I always hope they help save lives, maybe make people think before they pass that diesel truck on HWY 95N on the 2 lanes.

Any one coming out to visit me I warn them of the dangers & tell them that every time they see those crosses please remember to be more cautious.

Now I wouldn't mind what symbol was used but those out here would really have a fissy if it were any other symbol than the cross.

History is what it is history, we can try & make it better be we shouldn't forget it IMO.

Sly

~

[LisaM22]

I think it depends on the courts, if like most of us the courts rule this is not a religious endorsement but a historical marker, then it stays, but if the courts decide it is a religious marker rather then historical sadly it will have to go, obviously we can't have the government selling little plots of land to some religions and not others to bypass the law, I think that is where the mistake was made, by doing that they crossed the line of legality imo

I think the government should regain the rights to the land, it should be classified as a historical site and be done with it, if they keep playing games like this we will lose this historical site

[Cooper]

The cross stands for Jesus dieing on a cross as a savior rising him up to the status of g-d. Not all believe that way.


Exactly. Do we think all of those deceased veterans professed Christianity as their faith?

My son is serving in the military, stateside for now. Neither he, nor his family would feel "honored" by that symbol over his grave.

[Cooper]

Exactly, 75 years ago, the Christian faith was the basic accepted faith of the time; it is logical and historically correct for that symbol to honor those fallen at that time.


Really now? You think only Christian's died in that war defending their country?

[Cooper]

http://hi-caliber.blogspot.com/2009/06/one-man-files-suit-to-take-down.html


http://onthedocket.org/articles/2009/02/23/justices-agree-hear-mojave-desert-cross-case-feb-23-2009


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/08/sotomayor-faces-challenging-cases-new-supreme-court-justice/

Wow, he's been fighting this for eight years? Seriously? Perhaps he needs a hobby?

Gee, I wonder how much plywood and nails it will take to cover up all those crosses at Arlington? :rolleyes:


http://www.terragalleria.com/pictures-subjects/crosses/picture.crosses.usca43429.html

http://www.terragalleria.com/pictures-subjects/crosses/picture.crosses.usca43432.html

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/white-crosses.htm


He will fight as long as it take. My prayers are with him.

The crosses at Arlington are marking individual graves of Christian soldiers. You will also see Stars of David, the Crescent and now, even Wiccan symbols to honor the faiths of those who made the ultimate sacrifice for others. The lack of respect for that is not flattering.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/10/scalia_the_unreasonable.html

"Really, what else could they erect to honor the war dead if not a cross? Crosses are fine -- for Christians, and for Christian graves. I’m not a veteran, but I am Jewish, and I cannot believe that Jewish war veterans would feel honored by a cross. In fact, I expect they would feel rather deeply dishonored."

But that does not matter to you now, does it? You would rather mock the man, stating he needs a "hobby."

[LisaM22]

Really now? You think only Christian's died in that war defending their country?

this is the problem, the government sold the plot of land to Christians, so basically it lost the historical aspect, crosses have been used to bury the dead long before christians ever existed, but this cross is being clasified as christian by the courts and the games they have played with selling a small plot of government land like that, really means they were trying to bypass the law, I think this case is taking so long because people know this man is right and the law is on his side and are looking for any loophole to stop him (just like in the past when they thought they were smart and sold the small plot of land in the middle of the government owned land)

[Tracian]

Really now? You think only Christian's died in that war defending their country?


I never said that, nor did I imply that. I am simply stating at the time, the Christian faith was the most recognized, therefore, it is my opinion that the cross is more a historical monument than a religious symbol.

Taking down that cross does not change that part of this country's growth in the respect of other faiths being acknowledge.

[Cooper]

I never said that, nor did I imply that. I am simply stating at the time, the Christian faith was the most recognized, therefore, it is my opinion that the cross is more a historical monument than a religious symbol.

Taking down that cross does not change that part of this country's growth in the respect of other faiths being acknowledge.

The Statue of Liberty is a historical monument. The cross is not.

[Cooper]

this is the problem, the government sold the plot of land to Christians, so basically it lost the historical aspect, crosses have been used to bury the dead long before christians ever existed, but this cross is being clasified as christian by the courts and the games they have played with selling a small plot of government land like that, really means they were trying to bypass the law, I think this case is taking so long because people know this man is right and the law is on his side and are looking for any loophole to stop him (just like in the past when they thought they were smart and sold the small plot of land in the middle of the government owned land)


Exactly! Can you imagine if a military cemetery had a large Wiccan symbol or a Cresent Moon and Star? Would Christians be pursuing a hobby?

[ninetoes]

He will fight as long as it take. My prayers are with him.

The crosses at Arlington are marking individual graves of Christian soldiers. You will also see Stars of David, the Crescent and now, even Wiccan symbols to honor the faiths of those who made the ultimate sacrifice for others. The lack of respect for that is not flattering.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/10/scalia_the_unreasonable.html

"Really, what else could they erect to honor the war dead if not a cross? Crosses are fine -- for Christians, and for Christian graves. I’m not a veteran, but I am Jewish, and I cannot believe that Jewish war veterans would feel honored by a cross. In fact, I expect they would feel rather deeply dishonored."

But that does not matter to you now, does it? You would rather mock the man, stating he needs a "hobby."

BBM

This is true, but MANY feel there should be no religious symbols of any type on any state or federal land. The man who fought about the star on the Christmas tree is also fighting to have crosses removed from roadsides, even if the family was Christian, because he feel religious symbols should not be on govt land...period. Will he eventually win, and force the removal of all religious symbols from all govt property and buildings? I think so, over time.

[Tracian]

The Statue of Liberty is a historical monument. The cross is not.

Missions are restored and have religious symbols throughout them; should they be removed as well?

[Details]

BBM

This is true, but MANY feel there should be no religious symbols of any type on any state or federal land. The man who fought about the star on the Christmas tree is also fighting to have crosses removed from roadsides, even if the family was Christian, because he feel religious symbols should not be on govt land...period. Will he eventually win, and force the removal of all religious symbols from all govt property and buildings? I think so, over time.No, he won't.

There's a difference between a cross put up somewhere when the family can choose to put up any type of symbol they like, and a big cross put up on federal land to represent the deaths of people of many religions, then sold illegally to a particular buyer to maintain the cross, when the same would not happen for a Star of David, or any other symbol.

It's like the manger scenes that are put up on public property. They're allowed many places - IF the city makes room for ANY religious group to put up their display. So long as it is open to all, it's legal. When it is one religion receiving preference - that is precisely what our founding fathers worked to prevent.

[Cooper]

Missions are restored and have religious symbols throughout them; should they be removed as well?

Missions do not serve as memorials over war dead of all faiths.

[Tracian]

Missions do not serve as memorials over war dead of all faiths.


This is true, we are also talking about historical monuments.

[Cooper]

This is true, we are also talking about historical monuments.

A war memorial is to honor war dead of all faiths. That is it's purpose.

It is not "honorable" to have a cross looming over non Christians who made the ultimate sacrifice for others. Historical monument or not.

I spoke to my son who is currently serving. He would not feel "honored" but rather ignored and dishonored.

[Tracian]

A war memorial is to honor war dead of all faiths. That is it's purpose.

It is not "honorable" to have a cross looming over non Christians who made the ultimate sacrifice for others. Historical monument or not.

I spoke to my son who is currently serving. He would not feel "honored" but rather ignored and dishonored.


Today, I would expect more awareness in regards to the sensitive needs of other's faiths to be recognized; 75 years ago, that cross was not erected as a 'diss' on anyone, it was erected because basically the Christian faith was most prevalent.

I am not a Christian, I don't take the cross necessarily as a Christian symbol, simply because, it actually can be linked back to even paganism.

Ignoring what historically what was once the norm does not change history; nor does it show a more sensitive nation IMO, it shows a lack of tolerance.

I am secure enough in my faith, in my path that I don't take a cross as the government forcing one faith down my throat; no more than when I see a picture of Raphael's Angels in a government building, or the carvings of cherubs.

Sometimes remembering the past, shows us just how far we have come.

[Cooper]

Today, I would expect more awareness in regards to the sensitive needs of other's faiths to be recognized; 75 years ago, that cross was not erected as a 'diss' on anyone, it was erected because basically the Christian faith was most prevalent.

I am not a Christian, I don't take the cross necessarily as a Christian symbol, simply because, it actually can be linked back to even paganism.

Ignoring what historically what was once the norm does not change history; nor does it show a more sensitive nation IMO, it shows a lack of tolerance.

I am secure enough in my faith, in my path that I don't take a cross as the government forcing one faith down my throat; no more than when I see a picture of Raphael's Angels in a government building, or the carvings of cherubs.

Sometimes remembering the past, shows us just how far we have come.

Yes, your points are good ones. However, as you said we have come a long way and we are speaking about the cross today, as it is.

We can change that.

[Tracian]

Yes, your points are good ones. However, as you said we have come a long way and we are speaking about the cross today, as it is.

We can change that.


We can change it, sure, but to what purpose? Because it is a symbol that could stand for a religion, but can also in the spirit of remembrance, of the sacrifice that many made, and has been on that site for 75 years?

Now, if you were talking about something today...then I would support something that would encompass all faiths, and freethinkers as a memorial; but at least for me, I take it as a loving gesture of that time.

[Cooper]

We can change it, sure, but to what purpose? Because it is a symbol that could stand for a religion, but can also in the spirit of remembrance, of the sacrifice that many made, and has been on that site for 75 years?

Now, if you were talking about something today...then I would support something that would encompass all faiths, and freethinkers as a memorial; but at least for me, I take it as a loving gesture of that time.

Change it to honor those of other faiths. It is not to late to honor all of those who made the ultimate sacrifice. Once the error is recognized, it should be rectified.

The cross only honors those of the Christian faith. People of other faiths have expressed that to you. Why is that hard to accept, that a cross does not "honor" Jews or Muslims or Buddhists?

Mark my word, it was not a "loving gesture" just like the sign of those times stating "no jews or dogs allowed."

It was a sign of exclusion.

We can change that now and we should.

[Tracian]

Change it to honor those of other faiths. It is not to late to honor all of those who made the ultimate sacrifice. Once the error is recognized, it should be rectified.

The cross only honors those of the Christian faith. People of other faiths have expressed that to you. Why is that hard to accept, that a cross does not "honor" Jews or Muslims or Buddhists?

Mark my word, it was not a "loving gesture" just like the sign of those times stating "no jews or dogs allowed."

It was a sign of exclusion.

We can change that now and we should.


I have to disagree. I am a Wiccan, and there was just a huge fight to get the Wiccan symbol allowed in Ferndale, NV. Military Cemetery.


IF the cross had writing that said to honor those fallen Christians, I would agree.

IF the cross said, only Christians have fought and died honorably I would agree.

IF the cross had printed comments in regards to other faiths, yeah, right there with you.

IF this was erected in the last five years, I would most likely agree.

But this has been there for 75 years, not 10 years...not five years...75 years.

The cross is generic, it is not always symbolic of Christian faith, because a faith claims it, does not make it so.

Strictly IMO:

How can I expect tollerance for my faith, if I do not show tollerance and respect for the faiths or freethinking of others?

I respect that when that cross was erected, it was not meant to exclude, it was simply a memorial, using a symbol most widely reconized.

[Cooper]

I have to disagree. I am a Wiccan, and there was just a huge fight to get the Wiccan symbol allowed in Ferndale, NV. Military Cemetery.


IF the cross had writing that said to honor those fallen Christians, I would agree.

IF the cross said, only Christians have fought and died honorably I would agree.

IF the cross had printed comments in regards to other faiths, yeah, right there with you.

IF this was erected in the last five years, I would most likely agree.

But this has been there for 75 years, not 10 years...not five years...75 years.

The cross is generic, it is not always symbolic of Christian faith, because a faith claims it, does not make it so.

Strictly IMO:

How can I expect tollerance for my faith, if I do not show tollerance and respect for the faiths or freethinking of others?

I respect that when that cross was erected, it was not meant to exclude, it was simply a memorial, using a symbol most widely reconized.


Tolerance is not the issue. Respect and honor are. The cross is a universal symbol of Christianity. The time it was erected, there was not tolerance or even mutual respect but wide spread discrimination against religious minorities.

The symbol of the cross means different things to different people.

To some, it may be comforting, a reminder of a savior.

To others, not so much.

It is never too late to honor and respect. I think of that often when I meet a Vietnam vet.

[LisaM22]

We can change it, sure, but to what purpose? Because it is a symbol that could stand for a religion, but can also in the spirit of remembrance, of the sacrifice that many made, and has been on that site for 75 years?

Now, if you were talking about something today...then I would support something that would encompass all faiths, and freethinkers as a memorial; but at least for me, I take it as a loving gesture of that time.

we can change it because of the abuse of the courts, we can take the land back as it was illegally sold, we can put a monument up in it's place, the cross is not even the original, that symbol fell apart a long time ago