• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cross in a box

GreyICE said:
Because part of non-establishment is the general concept of not establishing - of having no say in the matter, neutral or non-neutral. The government should treat a religious institution and a non-religious institution similarly - which means that the original religious memorial could be joined by a non-religious memorial, but the government shouldn't be saying that it's a 'bad religion' and needs to be taken down while a non-religious memorial or memorial from a different religion remains up.
Click to expand...

Under your proposed rules, if someone painted a Latin Cross, a Star of David or a Pentagram on the Washington Monument, would the government be prohibited from removing this religious expression?

If not, can you explain how this is different from the Mojave Cross case?
 
Kestrel said:
Under your proposed rules, if someone painted a Latin Cross, a Star of David or a Pentagram on the Washington Monument, would the government be prohibited from removing this religious expression?

If not, can you explain how this is different from the Mojave Cross case?
Click to expand...

Very simple - if a person painted a new car, their favorite celebrity, or gang slogans on the side of the Washington Monument, that's not allowed either, Kestrel.

They're not proposed rules. They're the actual rules. As soon as the government says 'yeah, sure, mr. 3rd party, build a monument on this land' they can't care one way or another about the religious nature of it, assuming that its otherwise appropriate. Non-establishment is non-establishment.
 
GreyICE said:
Very simple - if a person painted a new car, their favorite celebrity, or gang slogans on the side of the Washington Monument, that's not allowed either, Kestrel.

They're not proposed rules. They're the actual rules. As soon as the government says 'yeah, sure, mr. 3rd party, build a monument on this land' they can't care one way or another about the religious nature of it, assuming that its otherwise appropriate. Non-establishment is non-establishment.
Click to expand...

The current Mojave Cross is in violation of those rules. It was installed on public land without permission.
 
GreyICE said:
You're not paying much attention, are you?
Click to expand...

Quoting from the link I provided earlier:

The current version of the cross was built by Henry Sandoz, a local resident, sometime in 1998. When NPS investigated the history of the cross, Sandoz explained that he drilled holes into Sunrise Rock to bolt the cross in place, making it difficult to remove. Sandoz did not receive a permit from NPS to construct the cross.
Click to expand...
 
TragicMonkey said:
Is there something special about the location that people who want to honor WWI fallen have to do it there and not elsewhere? Was there a WWI battle on the spot? If not, nothing's stopping people from putting up any kind of monument they want on their own land. The fact that they're fighting over this particular spot suggests the main concern isn't honoring the war dead (or placating their vengeful ghosts) at all, but in making some kind of point about certain religions and government. (If I were a vengeful ghost, I'd be angered that someone was trying to use my death as a pawn in some stupid court game nearly a century later.)
Click to expand...

The location of the cross is a site where WWI veterans went because the climate aided in recovery of lung injuries from the effects of chemical attacks
 
Here is a link that is a cross-reference (get it??) to a thread in the Politics forum discussing the case and including a link to the oral arguments.
 
Last edited:
Alareth said:
The location of the cross is a site where WWI veterans went because the climate aided in recovery of lung injuries from the effects of chemical attacks
Click to expand...

Well, I guess everyone has to decide for themselves whether that makes the site particularly sacred.
 
GreyICE said:
/facepalm

Read what I write. You're arguing something that I already agreed with. I'm not quite sure why, I think you really feel a burning desire to argue this one.
Click to expand...

Just trying to clarify your position and compare that to the actual situation with the Mohave Cross.
 
Kestrel said:
Just trying to clarify your position and compare that to the actual situation with the Mohave Cross.
Click to expand...

No, if you were attempting to clarify you'd ask me actual questions, not leading stereotypes. Graffiti on the Washington Monument? Could your strawman be a little more stuffed? You assigned me a position and then tried to shout me down. Not appreciated.
 
Last edited:
GreyICE said:
No, if you were attempting to clarify you'd ask me actual questions, not leading stereotypes. Graffiti on the Washington Monument? Could your strawman be a little more stuffed? You assigned me a position and then tried to shout me down. Not appreciated.
Click to expand...

In the post that apparently bothers you, I did in fact ask a question. I fully expected you to reply that the government would be allowed to remove the religious paintings.

Here is another hypothetical question regarding treating religious and secular groups identically.

Suppose that local geologists volunteers to create and install educational signs for a National Park explaining the geological layers in a canyon. If the National Park accepts them, should they then have to accept signs from a church group with an explicitly religious purpose? (For example, a set of signs with inspirational Bible quotes).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom