- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Religion
Atheist Marines Challenge Camp Pendleton Cross
If atheists have their way, U.S. Marines can fight for freedom--they just can't exercise it. That fact was made painfully clear last week, when four Marines climbed a steep hill at Camp Pendleton on Veterans' Day, determined to build a tribute to their fallen brothers. They brought a cross, 13-feet tall, to replace one that was lost in a wildfire in 2003. "We wanted them all to know that they'll always be in our hearts, that they'll never be forgotten," said Staff Sargeant Justice Rettenberger. Unfortunately, what they'll most be remembered for is sparking another controversy over religious expression on government property. The Marines spent two hours physically carrying the cross to the peak, and that same day, the Los Angeles Times published an inspiring story about their climb and the heroes they dedicated it to.
That drew some unwanted attention from a group called the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (MAAF), which demanded the cross come down. Its location,they argued, "makes us feel like the federal government privileges Christianity over non-Christians like us, makes us feel like second-class citizens." In the Marines' defense, Camp Pendleton said the men were "acting as individuals, not as representatives of the military." Even so, the base's officials did agree to review the matter internally. Unfortunately, this is the effect of an administration intent on driving faith out of the public square. The families who lost so much are forced to lose more: the honorable expression of their sacrifice. I commend these young Marines for commemorating those who've given their lives in the effort to obtain and preserve freedom for others. I've climbed those hills at Camp Pendleton and getting a cross to the top of them is no small challenge. Sadly, the greater challenge is to ensure radical secularists don't crucify on the cross of political correctness the freedoms won by the heroic efforts of the men and women who serve.
Galleries
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
I'd like to point something
I'd like to point something out, empiricism, in general is not practical. There are two catagories, 1) Direct Personal Experience, 2) Indirect Experience. If you rely only on personal experience you would be extremely limited in what you could actually learn in a life time. If you rely on the works of others you are taking on faith that they actually did the work and were honest in their conclusions. So from your posts I would imagine that most of your experience is based on the writings of others, i.e. out of a book or in classrooms, i.e. similar to a study group. So your experience is based primarily on the works of others and you believe what they say, based on faith.
The Catholic Heretic
You are playing word games.
You are playing word games. What you are describing is not "faith." Anything written in a science book as *empirically true* can be verified. For example, the value of Pi is 3.14... I have never measured the exact ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle, but I could. I have never measured the wavelength of light that makes the sky blue, so I "believe" what I read in a science book, but I could also verify with a spectrometer. Moreover, I could improve or make an answer more accurate with better data. This is *MUCH* different than making the statement - I "believe" that god exists. This is a non-empirical statement. You cannot empirically prove that god exists, or there would be no atheists. Nor can you derive it from facts. Empirical belief is not equivalent to religious faith. This is an old tired argument of false equivalency. Please don't conflate empiricism with religious faith. Religious faith is belief without empirical verification or the ability to verify some statement empirically.
Yes... you could argue that *I* might not be able to solve or use advanced equations in physics. This doesn't remove the claim that advanced topics such as QED or general relativity are in fact true and can be verified. For example, general relativity was verified when it was demonstrated that the gravity of the sun bent distant starlight. Similarly, science books frequently describe hypotheses that are plausible but not proven. A claim does not move from hypothesis to theory unless it has been verified. Most science books make it clear the differences between hypotheses and theories even though people seem to struggle with the differences. Please move on.. your argument is a dead end.
You believe the "...argument
You believe the "...argument is a dead end." So you do not ascribe to Philosophy either? Is that an Atheist Belief or just yours?
The Catholic Heretic
You are making an invalid
You are making an invalid epistemological argument equating religious faith with verifiable empirical belief. Religious people make this false argument all the time to try and put relgious faith without empirical proof on the same footing as science. This thread in your argument is dead. This is philosophy 101. Do you need a reference to go with it?
Ah, atheists have group think
Ah, atheists have group think about religion. Yes, I can take one atheist and switch them with another a never tell the difference. Atheist are so like one another the same thoughts are said by "different" posters from forum to forum.
Oh and I can switch Pj and JJ
Oh and I can switch Pj and JJ and see the same words.. That's right! They are the same person who gets banned for being an ass in every forum where he/they post. Just because every person on the planet ends up despising you doesn't mean there is any sort of group think. It just means you are in fact an ass.
So wordy, bossy and
So wordy, bossy and controlling. Are you, by chance, a neat freak?
Egotism of J-Jammer is never
Egotism of J-Jammer is never tiring. Insult everyone, drags the conversation through the mud with his constant trolling and invective. Gets banned. Creates sock-puppet account. Lies about it. Yeah....
I couldn't read your post,
I couldn't read your post, too much nonsense. Tone done the hypocracy, stay on topic and maybe you'll be more than a follower only to be forgotten tomorrow.
Great critique JJ. You tell
Great critique JJ. You tell me I have the air of expecting to be obeyed, and then you tell me I am nothing but a follower. Your leaps of logic and inconsistency are amazing. Your intellectual laziness knows no bounds.
You're correct that it can
You're correct that it can be. But sometimes the challenge is what inspires me to believe more. You are right, actually. Probably best to stop.
Percy....You are incapable of
Percy....You are incapable of admitting your wrong because your beliefs have become who you are. This is a difficult predicament your in, defending the non- defendable. Maybe its best if you just stop trying.
Chuck
Would you object to a muslim
Would you object to a muslim crescent erected by Muslim marines for the US muslim military personnel and innocent civilians killed in Iraq? What about a Wiccan pagan symbol? How about a rainbow or pink triangle for gay marines? What people find offensive is personal. The strength behind this complaint is the fact that this cross is a first amendment violation too.
Atheists come off just as
Atheists come off just as whiny and pushy as hollyrolling fundamental evangelical psychopaths. Regardless of what symbol was chosen for the memorial, these extremists are always the wet blankets focusing on petty bullshit because their feelings are hurt. So what if these men volunteered? I'd understand a valid complaint if it were mandatory. Let the dudes mourn their buddies and get along like civil adults. It's called COEXISTENCE. The tax dollars aren't paying rent on the cross, so drop the unconstitutional bullshit. Nobody is intentionally trying to hurt anyone's feelings.
pitbull.......we'll never
pitbull.......we'll never know that will we.
Chuck
Base property is public land.
Base property is public land. Consequently, all the constitutional issues apply. Public land means all of us are contributing toward the cost and upkeep of the parcel where this cross is posted, including muslims, jews, buddhists, and atheists. The first amendment requires that religious practices are *PRIVATE*, meaning you are free to worship anyway you wish and so is everyone else. Government can play no role in promoting or interfering (within reason) with any religion. A cross on public land by itself is a de facto endorsement of christianity, which is out of bounds regardless of who put the cross up and for what reason. The price of freedom or individual rights is that some people get to complain in ways you won't like. The main goal of the bill of rights is to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. You are perfectly within your rights to buy some land and build your own cross, or to host this cross when it gets moved. Government has no say in the matter. However, when it is public land, the rules change and your preferences for "coexistence" don't matter.
Okay, if you're going to go
Okay, if you're going to go that route, then why are we using tax dollars to pay for meat to feed soldiers when that violates the Hindu belief of non violence towards animals?
You are demonstrating your
You are demonstrating your ignorance. Banning meat for a religious reason would be an unconstitutional violation, endorsing the beliefs of Hindus.
Percy...WTF ?
Percy...WTF ?
Chuck
You sure do talk about rights
You sure do talk about rights a lot. How many court cases have atheist fought for to protect the rights of everyone? Atheist font care about everyone's rights. They care that they've hinder religious stuff no matter at what cost.
By the gods I think you got
By the gods I think you got it. Atheist have thin skin for a group that doesn't fight for rights for anyone but themselves, and that's why they're almost always legally wrong as well as morally.
Percy...your answer is
Percy...your answer is foolish.
Chuck
PJ or is it JJ? I am
PJ or is it JJ? I am confused.
http://home.windstream.net/kr
http://home.windstream.net/krolla/boohoo.jpg
If Jesus had been executed
If Jesus had been executed last century, "christians" would put electric chairs on top of their buildings and wear little miniature ones around their necks. What's the logic in venerating an instrument of torture? It's just one more example of how religion equals insanity.
Hahaha stupidity
Hahaha stupidity
No, we wouldn't.
No, we wouldn't.
The Catholic Heretic
Wow, you just gave me a
Wow, you just gave me a fabulous jewelry idea for my boutique.
Who wants to post on a
Who wants to post on a website where people that don't agree without call you troll? Sad. These atheist are no better than the Westboro Baptist Church. Their rights were not violated. They violated those who wish to mourn's rights.
Percy Jackson.....Have you no
Percy Jackson.....Have you no comprehension of the US Constitution.....All you think about is your god, your religion, your rights....................well I'm here to tell you that it was illegal to put a religious symbol on that hill..............And I don't give a shit if like it or not.....
Chuck
Go ahead and point it out in
Go ahead and point it out in the constitution and do it without oozing PMS.
Chuck tends to use stronger
Chuck tends to use stronger language than I would, but the display of religious icons on public land is settled case law. There isn't any ambiguity. The military gets some special exemptions because of chaplains, etc. Each base must be a self-contained community, including places of worship. When I was at Pendleton, there were chapels, temples, and places of worship for at least a dozen different faiths. I can't imagine this list is getting shorter. *HOWEVER* there is a big difference between having a cross on a chapel building and putting one on a hill in the common area of the base. That is the heart of this issue, and putting a cross in a common area on public land should be unconstitutional.
Including on the graves at
Including on the graves at Arlington cemetary?
The grave markers represent
The grave markers represent the individuals buried beneath them and not a de facto government endorsement.
Do you read what you
Do you read what you write?
"A cross on public land by itself is a de facto endorsement of christianity, which is out of bounds regardless of who put the cross up and for what reason." - CRW
"You are perfectly within your rights to buy some land and build your own cross, or to host this cross when it gets moved. Government has no say in the matter. However, when it is public land, the rules change and your preferences for "coexistence" don't matter." - CRW
"That is the heart of this issue, and putting a cross in a common area on public land should be unconstitutional." - CRW
The Catholic Heretic
A grave is not a common
A grave is not a common public area like a public cross on a hill. You need to read some actual cases. You are being very simplistic and black and white in a legally naive way.
No I'm not. I am quoting you.
No I'm not. I am quoting you. You made it "...simplistic and black and white in a legally naive way." Again, read what you write.
The Catholic Heretic
Read about the lemon test.
Read about the lemon test. Putting up a grave marker represents the beliefs of the person underneath the marker and it is not a public endorsement of the religion represented by the symbol. A big cross in the middle of base property is a public endorsement. Therefore, it fails the lemon test among other precedents. You seem unable to assemble the threads of an argument.
"You seem unable to assemble
"You seem unable to assemble the threads of an argument." Let's stick to what you said and not make personal attacks. And again you are inaccurate. Check FindLaw since you endorse that site: "The Tenth Circuit, relying on the Lemon/endorsement test, ruled in both cases last year that cross memorials honoring fallen troopers on Utah highways were unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause." So obviously your statement, "Putting up a grave marker represents the beliefs of the person underneath the marker and it is not a public endorsement of the religion represented by the symbol." is wrong. You should also read what you cite along with what you write. :D
The Catholic Heretic
Markers on the side of the
Markers on the side of the road are not grave sites. I am being consistent. You obviously have never studied the constitution or any case law.
Again, read what you wrote:
Again, read what you wrote: "A cross on public land by itself is a de facto endorsement of christianity, which is out of bounds regardless of who put the cross up and for what reason." I'm just pointing out your contradictions. Let me spell this out...I am only arguing your black and white view point. I don't need study case law to do that because the cases you cite show that your statements are not accurate. If you would actually read what you write and read the citations first before posting there wouldn't be an argument. Making the statement above leaves no room for exceptions, which the law is full of because it is changeable. What is legal on one day can be illegal the next. Look at the statement you made and tell me it's not black and white.
The Catholic Heretic
I have already listed the
I have already listed the exceptions. Look at the Lemon test and related cases. I am starting to feel like a broken record.
CRW this is what YOU WROTE =>
CRW this is what YOU WROTE => "A cross on public land by itself is a de facto endorsement of christianity, which is out of bounds regardless of who put the cross up and for what reason.", why not just admit you were wrong and we can move on.
The Catholic Heretic
Hairsplitter. They're
Hairsplitter. They're crosses placed by the government.
Which is an interesting
Which is an interesting point, because the cross in the article was not placed by the government, but by individual marines acting on their own initiative. Thus, it would seem that there's a case to be made that the cross in question here is far less a matter for Constitutional concern than crosses which the government actually erects at its own expense at Arlington.
Graves are not a public
Graves are not a public shared space. Really... Go read the cases I cited. You can read the text and analysis on Wikipedia and FindLaw.com.
FindLaw Dictionary => Public
FindLaw Dictionary => Public land n: land owned by a government. Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Published under license with Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Also most roads are "public shared space" and the road does not end at the edge of the pavement. Those crosses on the sides of the highway are in violation but you don't seem to intent on removing them. Why is that?
The Catholic Heretic
Again, the grave markers are
Again, the grave markers are the religious preference of the bodies or remains under the marker. This is not true of road side memorials or public crosses not on graves. How many ways do I have to say this?
Please see these quotes by
Please see these quotes by Jefferson who authored the first amendment: http://nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm Next, read the content of the treaty of Tripoli: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli . Next, read about the Lemon Test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman Now read this case that effectively banned the ten commandments from government displays: http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatedecisions/i/OBannon.htm Now read about the rules on when religious symbols can be displayed in a secular context: http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/holydays/bldec_AlleghenyACLU.htm There is no secular context in a bunch of marines putting up a cross on a military base. If the display was outside the base on private land, there would be no conflict.
This is the only revalent
This is the only revalent item: AMENDMENT I:
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.
The Catholic Heretic