Agnostic.com

21 1

Not sure where I stand on this because of the age of this cross monument and how it speaks to a different era. I am interested how the Supreme Court rules. Also interesed in hearing how other folks form an opinion about it. [npr.org]

mojo5501 7 Feb 25
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

21 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

9

We have a cross here in Missouri that is being contested. As with any religious type monument, I have no issue AS LONG as there can be monuments of other religious placed there alongside the cross. Personally, I would rather have no depictions of religion on government grounds.

"From this day forward"....like the attempt to place the Ten Commandments monuments in court houses (like the one they tried to erect in N.M. in 2017). If I remember correctly it was a case where civil liberties were being violated.

8

It's weird to me that there's even an argument about this. All the exceptions listed in the article, like "in god we trust" on US money, should all go, as should this cross.

That is the reason why the Supreme Court is taking up the issue...because it is still considered very controversial here in the U.S. to 'disrespect the cross'. Even if there are a group of people it may offend....does the minority opinion matter in cases like this? The cases of Confederate monuments and the Rebel Flag being taken down follow a somewhat similar path....offensive to many but 'Heritage" and 'history lessons" of our nation's past to others.

And pledge to flag-under god? How did that pass between the church/state divider

8

Just chop off it's little arms. Monument saved. It is no longer a cross. Problem solved.

Well there is a practical solution...the thing isn't in the best condition anyway....ha ha.

8

"Edwords, who helped bring the cross challenge, concedes that his objections may seem small now. But he warns that if you don't object to small incursions on your liberties, "people will use them as a precedent to make another abuse, and another one, and the other ones will be big, and you'll feel them, but it will be too late." My sentiment exactly. No public money should be spent for someones private business benefit or their particular religious beliefs.

The slippery slope argument.

7

It seems unlikely to me that all the people killed in WW1 were Christians, so this seems inappropriate from the very beginning.

6

If a religious symbol is on private property, there can be no complaint. But on government property, it is a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state. This can be fixed by removing the cross beam and leaving a monolith as a non-religious monument to the veterans.

Another option may be to build a museum to the days when the constitution was openly violated, and move all crosses, and other religious symbols from government properties into the museum. This way, the monument is preserved, but does not violate the constitution.

It can also be fixed by opening up the area in which the cross stands as an "open forum" in which anyone of any religion, or non-religion, may erect a monument without government interference. In an open forum, an atheist group could raise a monument to atheism, maybe even with a cross covered by a red circle-slash.

It sure doesn't sound like it is sitting in a place of great honor so I do like the ideas you have presented....if it is supposed to be getting respect, it should be in a place that's on more hallowed ground and I bet volunteers would gather money for it's upkeep rather than the taxpayer funded Park service.

"The days when the constitution was openly violated"....aint that the truth. And we're still paying for it.

5

If it isn't a religious symbol, why are religious people so very upset about the possibility of it being removed?

Good point. It has to be defined. Is it a monument or is it a religious icon? I suppose the Supreme Court will help decide that issue.

4

I have no problem with the display of religious symbols on private property, so the solution for the government is really simple. The government sells the square footage upon which the symbol rests to private organizations. Said organizations then lease rights of way where necessary to the government. Caveat: These organizations are not to be subsidized by the state or federal government in the form of tax exempt status. If the symbol is important enough to them, they will do what is needed to take care of it.

In the same vein, I suggest the government/s of this country stop subsidizing religions through tax exempt status. We pay state and federal taxes for the 'right' to own property and conduct business, so should they. The only place where I would consider exceptions would be as relates to legitimate charities.

4

Sell the land and the monument to some rich theist goober. No buyers? Tear it down, build another one that isn't a fucking cross. People don't like that? They can chip in to buy it. That's all I got.

You can pretty much guarantee there would be a military veteran's group who would jump on the chance.

@mojo5501 And I would have absolutely no problem with that.

3

Anything that could be perceived as a religious endorsement by government no matter how seemingly inconsequential is always the camel's nose under the tent situation.

I just spent 5 minutes learning about the origin of that saying...I hadn't come across it before as a metaphor.....learn something new everyday is my motto: [en.wikipedia.org]

@mojo5501 - Yes. It's essentially a variation of the slippery slope concept.

3

When I see monuments to ignorance like that I always think of John Goodman’s line in Red State:

3

Link is not "finding" the article ?

Try this: "npr.org/2019/02/25/697017790/cross-clash-could-change-rules-for-separation-of-church-and-state"

Not sure why it didn't work for you. I heard it on NPR this morning and knew it was something I wanted to give more thought about.

@BestWithoutGods thanks

It worked fine for me.

@mojo5501 it said not found. But I ended up reading on amelia Earhart
Lol
Bestwithoutgods added a working link

@bingst Oh good, I was getting anxious that I didn't link it properly! I am not the most tech savvy atheist on the planet...ha ha.

@mojo5501 well, everyone else commented positively.... most likely my phone wasn't picking up....

2

I don't think any supposed loving god would condone monuments to death and destruction. We use gods to vilify the other side (how many sports teams pray to a god about beating the other side). I firmly believe in separation of church and state and think that there is too much church in our state (or public places), but we will never be 100% rid of it.

Well, the monument was put up by mothers...whose sons were soldiers in WW1. More of a memorial of fallen soldiers than a pro-war symbol. At least that's how I see it. That is why I am conflicted....war memorial or religious icon? Both? That is what the Supreme Court is hashing out. I think it should be moved and not sponsored by our federal tax dollars. We'll have to see what the Court rules.

@mojo5501 I understand. I would recommend watching a movie entitled "The Americanization of Emily" mid 1960's (or read the book). The monologue give to Emily's mother by James Garner expresses my point better than I can. It is a great movie.

@mojo5501 If you can't find it, I may have the monologue somewhere...

2

I just wonder how the whole fiasco will play out in the supreme Court ? from what I read it's deteriorating anyhow ? at least it's not a concrete Jesus?

Yes, I suppose since it doesn't have a Jesus face or a Jesus body being crucified it seems a bit less 'blatant' to me as crosses go.

2

At some point we must understand that almost every symbol will end up in some forgotten religion.
As long as symbols of every religion (dead or alive ones) are accepted, we are good.
If you start to strip out religion symbols you will need to even change the names of the months (April is from afrodite, mars is from the god of war, june is from juno etc). Days of the week like Odin (Wedn), Thor (Thur) etc. Or even professional symbols and vocabulary.
The western world is a mix of roma/greek/christian culture, and religion is part of the culture.
What needs to be avoided is new ones, or preferential one (if there is a cross, you can build a baphomet also, and if you can't build a baphomet, then the cross shouldn't be there).

2

I'm leaning towards leaving it because of its historical significance.

@mzbehavin I am just not feeling that strongly against it as you are. I guess I find myself sentimental about the four words on the monument: "valor, endurance, courage, devotion" whether they are on a cross shape or a column shape...they don't trigger any religious, over the top religious expectation of anybody but have a more humanist tone to them for me personally. The soldiers that fought in WW1 really thought they were fighting a war to end all wars and it is tragically significant that our nation is becoming more and more militarized. In a way society never could have imagined back then in Peace Time. I definitely find myself having mixed feelings as you can tell. Historic or religious? Memorial or icon? I think, in the end, it deserves a better place than where it is and I don't feel destroying it is necessary...just not being maintained with taxpayer money.

2

I think that historical monuments should be allowed to stand, but no new monument of a religious character should be constructed.

Yes, I tend to agree with this way of thinking about this particular monument...it's a war monument in my way of thinking. Like national cemeteries with the soldiers of past wars....they tend to have the cross theme as a matter of tradition.

1

It's really a simple solution.
The American Legion is backing the monument.
Sell them the land it sits on and then it's not an issue.

1

My 2cents while I'm here. Move it to private property. If they must have a monument on public property at that location make sure it's something honoring the fallen of all religions and/or no religion.

1

My feeling is that it should not be supported by taxpayer funds. And I think it should be moved to a private site. It cannot represent our governing process. Which is what I think that it does, when left standing on public property!

0

This is a foregone conclusion.. the x stays..anything else would be a serious attack on European culture.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:298267
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.