Military officials at Camp Pendleton are investigating a cross that was erected by a group of former Marines to honor their fallen colleagues, after an atheist group objected to the monument.
“Camp Pendleton legal authorities are researching and reviewing the issue in order to make a judicious decision,” Lt. Ryan Finnegan said in a statement to Fox News & Commentary. “As Marines, we are proud to honor our fallen brothers, and are also proud of our extended Marine Corps family. However, it is important to follow procedure and use appropriate processes for doing this in a correct manner to protect the sentiment from question as well as be good stewards of our taxpayer dollars.”
That report at Pat Dollard dot com is accurate, but what is not, or should I say, what is offenisve, is the title for the piece: “Due To Atheist Objections, Marine Corps May Remove Camp Pendleton Memorial Cross”
No, it was not due to “Atheist objections.” It was due to the fact that the cross violates the Constitution of the United States of America, which, by the way Marines swear to protect and defend, as I’m sure the Marines who originally erected the cross would understand if it was just pointed out to them.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
It doesn’t matter that it’s illegal as long as the majority (or the privileged) are satisfied with it, right?
Stupid troublemakers following the law.
Normally I am in agreement with Greg, but this is a stupid argument. Some people want to put up a memorial to their fallen comrades. This argument is about what specifically their memorial looks like. Are we atheists so hung up on religious symbols, that we cannot allow a religious person to have a religious looking memorial to dead soldiers without arguing about the look of the thing? Just because the ground in the military base it sits on is owned by the government?
This is a monument to those fallen soldiers, not a rallying cry for the religious right. Unless we make it one. The shape of the monument is an aesthetic argument. If it had been an obelisk, put up by a church, would there be any outcry? Grow up, fight for what’s important, not just because its a fight. Unless you are going to campaign to replace all those crosses and stars of David on the miltary cemetaries of Western Europe with non-religious markers.
Intent is more important then appearances.
@John McCormick: It’s actually *your* argument that’s stupid.
A monument consisting of a cross is a monument to fallen *christian* Marines. Using the symbol of a specific religion in a memorial indicates an INTENT to exclude those that do not share the same supernatural beliefs, who are presumably being tortured forever by YHWH for not being christian.
If it’s on government property, then it’s a government endorsement of one specific religion over any others, or none at all. That is a glaring violation of the Constitution, and an insult to those who sacrifice so much to be able to claim the title ‘United States Marine’.
John McCormick:
The cross is unconstitutional and spits all over the memories of non Christian fallen Marines. The shape is clearly significant because they plumped for a piece of religious iconography. Anything I missed?
I agree with what John McCormick has written above.
This particular Cross was a heartfelt emotional, symbolic memorial to fallen comrades – carried up there by marines themselves – NOT an attempt to shove religion in people’s faces.
This is a non-denominational memorial cross and in the comments on one news item I’ve just seen on this – linked via one Pharyngula comment on an unrelated thread – a considerable number of Jewish, Agnostic and even Atheist commenters have pointed out that they have no problem with it and, in fact, support its continued presence.
Protesting about this particular cross strikes me being petty, mean-spirited and seriously missing the flippin’ point. I think whining about this Camp Pendleton Memorial to Fallen US Marines gives atheists a bad name and brings them into disrepute with the wider community.
Even if there is some technical merit – and I’m not saying there necesssarily even is – to the objecting atheists arguments here note that there is a time to pick and choose your issues and fights and picking this one is just apallingly bad judgement.
Let the Fallen Marines Memorial stand. Let this particular (non)issue go throught to the keeper as they say. Let’s be smart and compassionate here; virtues atheists and agnostics are keen to claim.
FWIW, I’m an agnostic who has religious and atheist friends and family. I see very strong intellectual arguments in favour of atheism (eg,. the lawyerly case made by Dawkins, Hitchens and co) but I’m not entirely 100% convinced in excluding the possibility of something being behind the thing that is so emotionally important and has such a significant role in the lives of most of Humanity. Not a fan of organised religion myself, I’m certainly not going to tell others how to think and live or mock their deeply held beliefs either. As long, that is as they’re willing to keep their religiontothemselves and not impose it on me or others. IOW, whatever floats their boats provided their not harming or removing the choices of others.
StevoR: A good deal of your post was irrelevant. Sorry but there it is. Your own religious view are immaterial. The fact that some atheists agree with you is not an argument.
“This particular [piece of religious iconography] was a heartfelt emotional, symbolic memorial to fallen comrades – carried up there by marines themselves – NOT an attempt to shove religion in people’s faces.”
Does your sentence still make sense? Is the direct involvment of the Marines relevant? No. Your middle three paragraphs amount to telling people to sit down and shut up and choose their battles. Nope, not happening.
“Not a fan of organised religion myself, I’m certainly not going to tell others how to think and live or mock their deeply held beliefs either. As long, that is as they’re willing to keep their religiontothemselves and not impose it on me or others.”
Agreed.
Link to the article refered to here :
http://radio.foxnews.com//toddstarnes/top-stories/military-investigates-memorial-cross-at-camp-pendleton.html
Originally posted by dumbname (his choice of moniker not mine!) on the 18th of November 2011 at 1:52 pm on the “Someone wanna explain the Streisand Effect to the Pope?” thread on the Pharyngula blog – FTB version.
Hmm, I’m of two minds on this one. It’s pretty clearly unconstitutional in its current form, but perhaps we still shouldn’t immediately call for the cross’s removal. I think there is a way to turn this into a meaningful tribute to the victims of war which is acceptable to people of any faith and none. Let’s see, we’ll need a hammer, some nails, and Dick Cheney….
The reason atheists (and other non-Christian religious groups) should speak out when a memorial cross is placed on government grounds, anywhere, is not because we hate the dead or fallen, but because it is a clear example of Christian privilege.
I will admit to being somewhat new to the concept of privilege, but Jen has written extensively on the subject, and it’s given me a word to describe a lot of what I see in the day-to-day run of my life. Simply put, it’s just the assumption that a cross is okay for everyone. It is, however, not.
In this situation it would be just as fitting to commemorate the fallen Christian Marines with a simple tablet, cenotaph, or other non-denominational hunk o’stone, and the government should make sure this is what is done. Crosses are a Christian symbol. Even though it has “always” been “okay”, assuming it should continue to be so is the exact definition of privilege.
It’s not okay. Maybe a Jewish or Muslim soldier wouldn’t want his or her name on a cross. Maybe they wouldn’t care. The point is that they shouldn’t have to choose. Their families shouldn’t have to see a symbol they disagree with if they visit this memorial. There’s a lot of “shouldn’t”s in there. People gloss over those because they are used to Christian privilege.
But they shouldn’t have to do so. That’s why reminding people – professionally and gently – of what separation of church and state means is so important to many groups. So yes. Be professional and polite at first, because most people will see the error in privilege when it’s pointed out. But be ready to fight, because the world where non-Christian beliefs (or nonbelief, for that matter) is considered as viable in general course won’t come if we sit there and wait for it.
I am ex-Army and not a christian. Had I died in service I would have found having my memory associated with the symbol of a primitive blood sacrifice extremely offensive. I don’t care if it is a non-denominational christian symbol, it is still representative of the superstitious beliefs of christians. It is only non-christians who seem to appreciate this and it is all the more reason that it should be removed.
John, please notice first that my pot is about the way the story is reported more than the use of symbology. Then, notice that you are making the claim that discussions of church-state separation are stupid and childish. Here’s the thing. There is nothing whatsoever about your argument that can’t be translated into allowing old-fashioned meaning-rich symbols (as the cross in this case is) such as the old testament commandments on the wall of a public courthouse, or a school. (Along with the obelisks and funny looking pyramids and so on.) The thing is, this argument has pretty much already played out. Clear religious symbols generally, and dominant-culture ones in particular, have a certain meaning when erected in this sort of context (on public land, etc.)
We don’t need to start this argument. It’s been done, it is done. Those crosses are a mistake (an honest mistake I assume)
But here we have the revision of the issue (already settled) to bash atheists in a headline. As per usual.
By the way, I agree with your basis feelings on this. Personally, I am not bothered by a lot of symbolic usages. For instance, a cross-like symbol is used very often in the case of a death and it bothers me intellectually but not viscerally. But intellectually I think about the families of dead jews, then I wonder how fundies would react if we started putting Islamic religious symbols over the bodies of their slain warriors.
“This is a non-denominational memorial cross”
a non-denominational cross? do you mean it is not specifically Baptist or Lutheran or Catholic? you surely cannot mean it is non-Christian. How about a non-denominational star of David or crescent or pentagram? (yes, there are Wiccans in the military, and Wiccan pentagrams on headstones in military cemeteries.)
In this day and age, with reports of military favoritism (promotion in rank, etc.) based on religion, it becomes even more important to NOT honor a specific religion in military context
Steve R:
This particular Cross was a heartfelt emotional, symbolic memorial to fallen comrades – carried up there by marines themselves – NOT an attempt to shove religion in people’s faces.
I believe that is correct. But it is really not relevant. It was an honest effort to do something good, but it was done incorrectly by our constitutional standards.
This is a non-denominational memorial cross
Hahaha. I get it, you’r joking!
a considerable number of Jewish, Agnostic and even Atheist commenters have pointed out that they have no problem with it and, in fact, support its continued presence.
Oh, wait, you’re not.
Can someone please tell me if there is a WikiThink type “fallacy” name for this sort of argument? I’d like there to be so I could refer to it now.
Perhaps the “Fallacy of agreement of the repressed.” Working in South Africa I’ve encountered it again and again. “The Blacks were better off under the ‘old system’ …. why just the other day the Blacks living on a friend’s farm took me aside privatelyl and told me they wanted the old system back.”
I think whining about this Camp Pendleton Memorial to Fallen US Marines gives atheists a bad name and brings them into disrepute with the wider community.
Uffda. Again, the main thrust of the OP is to complain about the headline. THAT is what gives atheists a bad name … people saying snarky and bad things about atheism and atheists whenever possible.
there is a time to pick and choose your issues and fights and picking this one is just apallingly bad judgement.
OMG (as it were) I need another WikiDicki fallacy term for this!!! The argument that “enough is enough” fallacy.
I’m certainly not going to tell others how to think and live or mock their deeply held beliefs either.
AS long as they are christians, right? Muslim/Jewish/Atheist/Whatever marines can kiss your ass and live (or shall I say die) with the cross as the memorial to their service.
It’s the thin edge. If you let them put crosses on government land in one instance, you have set a precedent that they can do it therefore on any other government land. Anyone who thinks a cross is not a religious symbol should speak to religious persons who are christians, and they will educate you.
Every single incident of violation of church and state is worth fighting. The law does not pick and choose when to be the law. It is the law all the time, and we should enforce it all the time.
As an ex-Marine, I’d find it offensive. If they wanted to honor their fallen, why not an upright with the Marine Corps emblem on it? That’d be all-inclusive (well, inclusive of all Marines) and non-denominational. What idiots!
As an atheist married to another atheist marine stationed at Camp Pendleton, I find this monument in very bad taste. Why not a truly non-religious symbol. At least the Iwo Jima monument is tasteful and doesn’t throw religion in your face. Leave it to Christians to whine as soon as they feel “threatened,” but continue marginalizing other groups.
Hmm .. let me put it this way because this is how I see it :
Fight against Creationists trying to impose their garbafge on science classrooms? I’m with you 100%.
Oppose evil misognist laws and homophobic statements by Presidnetial wannabes and powerful Republican figures? Hell yes, of course!
Argue against theocractic monsters trying to bully everyone into falsely wishing them a “Merry Christmas” instead of genuinely saying “Happy holidays”? Naturally I’m on your side there.
Tell a bunch of marines that they cannot keep a tribute to their dead buddies – killed keeping all of us safe – that they’ve schlepped on their own backs up a mountain just becvause it happens to be cross-shaped?
Er.. Wait a second! What!? No, guys, this time, unusually enough you’re just wrong.
@15. Rikitiki & #16 Monica :
&
True enough perhaps but its a bit late now.
The marines in question chose a cross and chose to wlak it upthere themselves. Who are we to now demand they take it down?
What I hate is when religious folks tell me (& opeopel generally) what I must do and think and act and that Ihave to follow what they say.
Well, hang on a minute, are we now going to do exactly that in reverse to others? Tell them, in effect, they’re not allowed to wish us “Merry Christmas” because we demand a “Happy Holiday” only – or else?
I’m not a believer in people having a right to take offence. Everything offends somebody. If people aren’t going out of their way to offend – or to take offence – then I say let sleeping dogs lie. This cross offends hardly anyone. It hurts no one, it isn’t doing any harm. This isn’t an example of religion being imposed forcefully on those who don’t want it.
I’d have to say that those in the comments on the news article who point out that the Marine’s Cross isn’t even violating the constitution because it isn’t Congress establishing a religion -just a bunch of marines honouring their fallen. I take it those particular fallen were indeed Christians and the only a handful of extremeists – on the athiest side for once – are making it an issue.
Now sure, the anti-Marine’s Cross minority here have a right to express their views and to make removing it their crusade (or would they prefer jihad?) I guess – but having the right to do something doesn’t necessarily make doing it a good idea or bright thing to do.
Even if, and its a big ‘if’ in my mind, there’s something vaguely iffy about these particular marines choosing to raise this cross to remember their dead friends, aren’t teher a hundred and one more egregious and serious issues that are actually more worth fighting about instead?
Priorities & perspective people. Let’s apply some here.
@4. coryat : November 19, 2011 at 3:55 am
Er ..how exactly does it do that?
Unless you believe in some bizzare sorta miracle a cross has no salivia to spit with! 😉
In any case this is dedicated (from what I understand) to particular troops who, far as I’m aware, were indeed all Christian.
Do you also object to Christian graves in Arlington cemetary being marked with crosses too?
@14. deedee : November 19, 2011 at 11:16 am
Is this actually government land or is it private land that the govt is leasing? From some of the comments on the news item I think the legal status of the land may in fact be in doubt.
The law is well known for being an ass – an inflexibly intolerantly applied law doubly so!
Besides what law is being broken here?
Now I get the feeling – and please correct me if I’m wrong -that you’re going to respond to that with that line from the US Constitution. However, as one commenter (Robert Bryan – “yesterday” at 5:28am) noted on the news item :
Now I’m no constitutional lawyer, I could be mistaken but that does sound about right to me.
This is a private tribute chosen by private company of marines to honour their fallen friends. Not an act of governmment at all let alone the US Federal Congress.
Which would make this atheist protest about the Camp Pendleton Marine Memorial cross legally as well as ethcially and emotionally wrong here.
I have no gripe with religious people holding and practising their religion – provided they are not forcing it on me or others. That’s not happening in this particular case. The marines aren’t imposing this cross on anyone just putting it up themselves because it means something to them.
So who are we to fight with these marines & tell them what to do?
SteveR, a bunch of Marines sincerely and with good intentions made a mistake. That does not make it not a mistake.
@13. Greg Laden : November 19, 2011 at 8:37 am
Actually its ‘StevoR’ with an ‘o’ not a second ‘e’ and no space between that ‘o’ and the ‘R’, ‘k please?
But was it? I’ve already noted above (#19) why I don’t think it is unconstitutional.
How is that relevant or applicable in this particular case?
I point out that many Jews, agnostics, atheists – plus add at least one Buddhist to that list – have publicly said that this Marines Memorial Cross is fine by them and you respond with some anecdote about apartheid era South Africa and claims of a logical fallacy. Isn’t that a non-sequiteur on your part?
The headline in question :
“Due To Atheist Objections, Marine Corps May Remove Camp Pendleton Memorial Cross”
Well, I’m not sure that headline that misleading or inaccurate or in any way objectionable really. Lets go through what happened in a nutshell here :
1) A bunch of marines erect a cross as a monument to their dead buddies.
2) An athiest makes an objection to it because its a cross & crosses are religious as well as mathematical and grave marking symbols.
3) The Marines memorial cross is left facing possible removal.
So the headline is correct – saying it breaches the Constitituion is a matter of legal opinion not fact. What the atheists objecting to this cross are doing is a jerk move on their part. That I’ll admit is opinion too but one based on their course of action here.
Say wha..?
How is this a fallacy? I’m saying this is a petty, mean-spirited, counter-productive and unnecessary fight to pick and you counter with something about an “enough is enough” fallacy? I honestly do not understand the connection there or what you are meaning by that, Greg Laden, sorry.
@ Greeg Laden (continued) :
Steve R:
I’m not going to trawl through your meandering response looking for things to respond to. Sentiment and mawkish blather about the Marines in question is -strictly speaking- an irrelevance to the constitutional issue which is clear. They do not have a right to erect a private sectarian religious symbol on public property. That’s it.
“* Very minor side point but Muslim marines? Really? Especially after the Fort Hood shootings? I somehow doubt there’d be many if any at all of those. The Muslims tend to be the people on the recieving end of the marine fury not the dealing side of it!”
A fairly major point. It reveals your bigotry and general ignorance. What the fuck.
“I meant it is a general cross that doesn’t have to mean any Christian denomination or indeed even Christianity itself -you can just take it as a sign of respect if you so desire.”
lol wut.
?”Almost all of Rick Perry’s support appears to have gone to Herman Cain because, again, and I cannot stress this enough, nobody likes Mitt Romney.” –Jon Stewart
@Coryat :
You got my username here wrong. Its StevoR not Steve R. Getting someone’s name wrong is rude and reflects badly on you.
Oh but wait, yes you are! That’s just what you’ve done. Your post here is proof to the contrary contradicting that line above! 😉
In your opinion – which I and most others disagree with you about. Plus your mind seems to be firmly closed and not open to anything more subtle like say the facts in dispute!
Is it unconstitutional? Unclear. If Congress or a govt. did this it would probably be so. But private individuals doing so of their own volition, maybe not.
Is it even public land? That’s been disputed.
That’s what I said when I read your offensive mis-charaterisation of me.
Are you honestly claiming there’s a lot of Islamic marines? Because Citations definitely needed on that extraordinary claim.
Are you seriously implying that as many Islamic marines are on the dealing side of the marine vs Jihadist fight as they are on the receiving end of it?
Are you ignorant of the Fort Hood massacre :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting
Really?
Just what I first said. Trouble comprehending english? A cross is a symbol and has the meaning you choose to give it. Why not just think of it as a memorial marker – since in this particular case that’s exactly what it is.
Hey there I only wanted to take a moment to say I really like reading your blog!