The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: twyacht on November 21, 2011, 04:25:52 PM
-
(insert expletive)....
I have an idea....
How about the Marines "pay a visit" to these douchbags. Perhaps "persuade" them to a moment of enlightenment, clarity, and tolerance.
Or throw them off a (insert expletive) cliff.... >:(
Video at link.
Slide show here:
http://framework.latimes.com/2011/11/11/honoring-the-fallen/#/2
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/atheists-demand-marines-remove-cross-intended-to-commemorate-the-lives-of-fallen-u-s-soldiers/
Atheists Demand Marines Remove Cross Commemorating Fallen U.S. Soldiers
* Posted on November 21, 2011 at 8:55am by Billy Hallowell Billy Hallowell
* Comments (386)
An atheist group is clashing with U.S. marines at Camp Pendleton in California. The group, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (MAAF), is demanding that a cross that was put up on the base to commemorate fallen soldiers be removed.
In recent months, the MAAF has made a splash by taking on Christian themes in the military and championing atheism in the U.S. Armed Forces. Led by Jason Torpy, who was a West Point graduate and who fought in Iraq, the group seems to be following along the same somewhat antagonistic path as the Freedom From Religion Foundation, among other “freethinking” groups.
Recently, Torpy also came out in support of the installment of atheist military chaplains, an interesting proposal considering the notion that it would require non-believers to register as a faith group of sorts.
The latest drama surrounding the Christian symbol unfolded when, on Veterans Day, Marines erected a 13-foot cross to commemorate the lives of their comrades who perished in Iraq. Staff Sgt. Justin Rettenberger, one of the four individuals who is responsible for erecting the cross, explains that the memorial was done to honor Maj. Douglas Zembiec, Maj. Ray Mendoza, Lance Cpl. Aaron Austin and Lance Cpl. Robert Zurheide.
The L.A. Times documented the cross’ placement at the military base:
“We wanted them all to know that they’ll always be in our hearts, that they’ll never be forgotten,” Rettenberger told the Los Angeles Times.
But Torpy, though he understands the urge to remember the lost, says that, because of its placement on federal lands, the cross simply isn’t appropriate. While he claims he typically doesn’t get involved in issues like this, some of his atheist members who serve at Pendleton have asked him to intervene.
“In a lot of ways this is commendable – they’re honoring friends who were probably Christian,” Torpy said. “I think the memorial is appropriate for the individuals who put it up and the friends they’re honoring, but you just can’t walk onto federal land and do it.”
While he says he doesn’t want to be the bad guy, he says that he shouldn’t be the only one standing up in opposition to the cross. It “privileges one religion over another,” he says, going on to claim that ”[Camp Pendleton} should have known better."
The L.A. Times has an excellent slideshow that documents the cross’ story.
Pendleton released a statement saying that the four Marines who put the cross up were not acting in “any official position or capacity” and that the Department of Defense and the U.S. Marine Corps were not endorsing the cross. Torpy, though, says that the religious symbol should have been prevented from being placed on federal land.
According to FOX News, there’s been some strong reaction to atheists demands that the cross be removed. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and a former marine, is frustrated over what he sees as “radical” attacks on the military.
“It’s really outrageous and it shows the hostile environment that’s been created by this (Obama) administration towards religious freedom,” he says. “At some point, we have to say, enough is enough.”
Currently, officials are reviewing the situation to determine the appropriateness of the cross’ placement on federal lands.
******
Civil Wars have been started over "little" issues like this....(sarcasm on "little").... This is B.S. the wishes of a minority do not outweigh the wishes of a majority.
"In God We Trust"...
-
Pendleton is just south of San Clemente. The loons of Southern Cal are everywhere and the state beach is right outside the northern gate to the base. There is also San Onofre Nuclear Gen Station across the street. They get protests quite frequently there as well.
-
In a Republic, the wish of the majority don't necessarily outweigh the wishes of the minority either.
-
In a Republic, the wish of the majority don't necessarily outweigh the wishes of the minority either.
There are "Crosses" and "Star Of David" headstones in Military Cemeteries around this entire country, and the world....
Even Europe understands....
I cannot believe we can't do better to honor the fallen without debate. Washington's Prayer For the Nation, Lincoln's Prayer, FDR's prayer, JFK's prayer, Reagan's Prayer. etc,...These folks need to STFU.
-
I would like to point out that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that the government will make no law prohibiting or promoting a given religion. No where does the Amendment guarantee freedom from any given or all religion. Also, over the centuries, twenty to be precise, the common cross has become a symbol of comfort to people of many faiths or lack there of.
Today I heard parts of a report on the radio of a country that is banning the name of Jesus in text messages. They have directed carriers to block the words Jesus and Christ. I suggest these people that waste our time, energy and finances on stupid lawsuits move to these countries that ban all things Christian.
-
These are American Graves. on Federal Property....Perhaps these headstones should be re-done.....
Lest We Forget.
-
I have been an outspoken proponent of seperation of church and state, but I don't see any of the examples here where that is violated.
It would be great if there were crosses and Star of Davids and any other symbol of the religion of the deceased to mark their grave...or no marker if that is the preference.
But, in no way does the marker on the grave next to someone's grave cause a wrong to anyone, particularly the deceased.
Only if you were forced to have a religious symbol placed as a marker for your "deceased" might there be a case.
And I cannot perceive how what I text to anyone can be seen as a violation...If there is any type of violation it would be by the recipient and they would need to handle that.
-
Separation of Church and State does not appear in the US Constitution.
It's an opinion of Jefferson that was never added to the document.
-
Guess What Marines Said?
Would that be , " F*ck you" ?
-
Separation of Church and State does not appear in the US Constitution.
It's an opinion of Jefferson that was never added to the document.
Not only was this phrase or statement a part of the Constitution or the First Amendment, but it is only Mr. Jefferson's opinion. Thomas Jefferson was not a part of writing the First Amendment, yet his single phrase has become the litmus test by which all anti-Judeo Christian "experts" try and regulate our lives.
-
Not only was this phrase or statement a part of the Constitution or the First Amendment, but it is only Mr. Jefferson's opinion. Thomas Jefferson was not a part of writing the First Amendment, yet his single phrase has become the litmus test by which all anti-Judeo Christian "experts" try and regulate our lives.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html
Representative James Madison, who was so instrumental in the creation of the Constitution in the first place, drafted a bill of rights. Though he originally opposed the idea, by the time he ran for a seat in the House, he used the creation of a bill as part of his campaign. He introduced the bill into the House, which debated it at length and approved 17 articles of amendment. The Senate took up the bill and reduced the number to 12, by combining some and rejecting others. The House accepted the Senate's changes, voting on September 24th and 25th, 1789; twelve articles of amendment were sent to the states for ratification.
-
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A lot of folks in this country like to put words into the mix that ain't there.
Does placing a religious symbol equate to "gubmint-sponsored religion" or law?
IMHO, No.
-
Actually, the way I interpret that is if they do something to stop the Marines from putting up a cross they're "prohibiting the free excessive thereof"!
Even though they are Marines, they are also citizens of the United States of America or legal immigrants who are merely employees of the US Government. They have all the same rights as everyone else in the USA!
-
A lot of folks in this country like to put words into the mix that ain't there.
Does placing a religious symbol equate to "gubmint-sponsored religion" or law?
IMHO, No.
Actually, the way I interpret that is if they do something to stop the Marines from putting up a cross they're "prohibiting the free excessive thereof"!
Even though they are Marines, they are also citizens of the United States of America or legal immigrants who are merely employees of the US Government. They have all the same rights as everyone else in the USA!
The problem I have with this is that if I agree with it, then I have to allow folks who wish to put up a symbol of any religion or belief to do so.
If a group of government employees want to put up a satanic symbol over the graves of our fallen soldiers, they will be allowed by the same reasoning..
Same with any pagan religion.
-
The problem I have with this is that if I agree with it, then I have to allow folks who wish to put up a symbol of any religion or belief to do so.
If a group of government employees want to put up a satanic symbol over the graves of our fallen soldiers, they will be allowed by the same reasoning..
Same with any pagan religion.
If you have ever filled out a VA 40-1330 (Application for a Standard Government Headstone or Marker) you would have noted the high number of religious choices.
-
If you have ever filled out a VA 40-1330 (Application for a Standard Government Headstone or Marker) you would have noted the high number of religious choices.
Haven't filled one out, but that is a good practice. I know some would not be on the list, perhaps do to low volume of selection, but would we allow the family to supply a headstone/marker with the symbol of their choice?
We can eliminate the Swastika because it is a political symbol rather than a religious one, but there might be others not on the list offered.....again, a satanic symbol comes to mind as an extreme example.
Also, if the Marines in the example that started this thread had chooses a satanic symbol (and I know that is very far from likely) would we allow them to put it up?
I ask these questions even though they are way at the extreme of possibility because that is the way I determine if my logic/reasoning is right. If it does not work for me at the extremes of the situation, I need to think about it some more.
As for "the wishes of the majority"...
Our country may soon have a majority of Hispanic or Muslim population.
If there is a Hispanic majority, should the national language be changed to Spanish?
And should the majority becme Muslim...and I mean peaceful Muslim, should they be able to take back their religion, should the Pledge of Allegiance read "...one nation, under Allah.."? or Satan, again using that unlikely extreme as a test.
-
There is an area for an inscription. If you write your own you first must stay within the defined number of characters, and secondly it is subject to review. This review is done regardless of who you are or what you say - every inscription is reviewed, and I have been somewhat amazed by what is allowed.
In a National Cemetery you must use a Government marker or headstone. However, in a private or public cemetery you can receive a reimbursement amount if you choose to purchase a marker of your liking.
-
There is an area for an inscription. If you write your own you first must stay within the defined number of characters, and secondly it is subject to review. This review is done regardless of who you are or what you say - every inscription is reviewed, and I have been somewhat amazed by what is allowed.
Again, that sounds like a wise practice. Just seems like this "final statement" should be most fully protected by the 1A.
-
The problem I have with this is that if I agree with it, then I have to allow folks who wish to put up a symbol of any religion or belief to do so. Correct!
If a group of government employees want to put up a satanic symbol over the graves of our fallen soldiers, they will be allowed by the same reasoning..No, only the individual has these rights, not a group or organization IMO!
Same with any pagan religion. Correct again, no matter how distasteful!
We don't have to like it or agree here, just interpret the Amendment by the literal words written.
-
Also, if the Marines in the example that started this thread had chooses a satanic symbol (and I know that is very far from likely) would we allow them to put it up? Yes!
As for "the wishes of the majority"...
Our country may soon have a majority of Hispanic or Muslim population.
If there is a Hispanic majority, should the national language be changed to Spanish? There is NO national language in the United States!
And should the majority become Muslim...and I mean peaceful Muslim, should they be able to take back their religion, should the Pledge of Allegiance read "...one nation, under Allah.."? or Satan, again using that unlikely extreme as a test. Sticky wicket old chap as Allah is God to a Muslim. This one is a matter of whom would be the governing body in the US. I'd suggest that if we were in a Muslim majority, we'd be living under something other than the protections granted by our Creator or the US Constitution. The "Pledge" is not a Constitutional issue! As to Satan, if you believe in God, you believe in the Fallen Angel as well. If one chooses to honor Satan, no matter how distasteful we may find it, it's their right!
It sucks but that's the way I see it.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
The Pledge has been modified 4 times, all 4 required Congressional approval.
The addition of the words "under God" were the latest being introduced by Ike and approved by Congress.
-
tom, I believe they would be a little more respectful.
I believe it would be more like "F*ck you, sir!"
Richard
-
tom, I believe they would be a little more respectful.
I believe it would be more like "F*ck you, sir!"
Richard
Apparently you have never pissed off a Marine. ;D
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
The Pledge has been modified 4 times, all 4 required Congressional approval.
The addition of the words "under God" were the latest being introduced by Ike and approved by Congress.
That makes is come close to falling under "law".
Problem I have with this in The Pledge is that some folks who feel as strongly about their religion as the believers in God, as in the Jedeo/Christian God, believe in theirs, are forced to either not pledge to the country they love or make a compromise and remain silent for that passage while still participating in an act that acknowledges another "god"
God, being the jealous God he is, might take exception to that.
While I expect adults to be able to handle all this without to much suffering, I do consider it different for children.
With children being so tolerant of kids who are different in almost any way, those who don't believe in the J/C God should receive little hassle or rejection when they sit out the pledge or clam up for that passage.
-
The Pledge is not mandatory, you will find the Constitution and US law use the phrase "Pledge or affirmation".
-
The Pledge is not mandatory, you will find the Constitution and US law use the phrase "Pledge or affirmation".
I know, but I'd not like to be the 10 year old who sits it out when all the other kids in class are standing and pledging.
There might be no legal pressure to make the pledge, but I'd bet there'd be some peer pressure.