Steve R:

You got my username here wrong. Its StevoR not Steve R. Getting someone’s name wrong is rude and reflects badly on you.

I’m not going to trawl through your meandering response looking for things to respond to.

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! 😉

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.

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.

It reveals your bigotry and general ignorance. What the fuck.

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?

lol wut.

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.

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.

“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?

Wrong.

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.

I’m the last person who’d tell any marines to kiss my ass! Ever.

This cross, from what I gather, is to a certain group of marines who died that were NOT Muslims*, Jewish or generally non-Christian. Marines who want to have other symbols or whatever marking their graves and on monuments to them can and I think should have whatever they want on them.

This is abvout one specific monument – NOT all marines in general.

@12.randyburbach : November 19, 2011 at 8:31 am

“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.)

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.

As for Stars of David, well technically I think its called the ‘Shield of David’ or Magen David :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magen_David

But yeah, that’d be great by me. No objections at all and especially appropriate to use if the marines in question were Jewish. Same applies for pentagrams, Muslim crescents and Flying Sphaghetti Monster signs if the troops so wished to use them and thought they were best. Its up to the specific marines (or people generally.) That’s really pretty axiomatic.

@6. coryat : November 19, 2011 at 4:10 am

StevoR: A good deal of your post was irrelevant. Sorry but there it is. Your own religious view are immaterial.

Fair enough. I was just providing that to give y’all some background context on where I’m coming from here.

The fact that some atheists agree with you is not an argument.

Maybe not in itself. But can I use it as support in showing that others share my views and that I’m not alone in this? There is such a thing as building consensus and coming into agreement with a number of other people right?

“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?

Well I think so! Are you saying that sentence doesn’t make sense and, if so, then why?

Is the direct involvment of the Marines relevant? No.

I disagree. These are marines NOT creationist, not Congress not politicians or radio /TV “shock jocks.”

These are the people who have been risking their lives so we can enjoy the comfort and freedoms we have. They’ve flippin’ well *earnt* the respect they’re rightly given by tehretsof Society. They deserve to be treated decently & listened to & to be held in higher than average esteem.

Your middle three paragraphs amount to telling people to sit down and shut up and choose their battles. Nope, not happening.

I don’t think that’s an accurate characterisation of them at all.

I’m saying protesting this Camp cross is a silly, petty, mean-spirited and counter-productive thing to do that makes atheists look like jerks because, well, it is acting like jerks to try and tell these particular marines they can’t honour their dead as they please because a few extreme atheists find their memorial offends them.

That’s my opinion and I stand by it. I’m not telling these athiests they *can’t* stand up and protest about it – but I’m saying I’m certainly not in agreement with themon thsi onespecific thing. That I think they look bad and make the rest of us, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists look bad in association and that I wish they wouldn’t be so silly even if they have the right to be so silly. Also that I think inthis case they are just wrong.

But I guess *you’d* like *me* to just shut up, sit down and go along meekly with the atheists here making teh huge mistake of telling a group of marines how to commemorate their fallen, right?

++++++++

* 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! 😉

Steve R:

Actually its ‘StevoR’ with an ‘o’ not a second ‘e’ and no space between that ‘o’ and the ‘R’, ‘k please?

It was an honest effort to do something good, but it was done incorrectly by our constitutional standards.

But was it? I’ve already noted above (#19) why I don’t think it is unconstitutional.

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.”

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?

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.

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.

“there is a time to pick and choose your issues and fights and picking this one is just apallingly bad judgement.” – StevoR.
OMG (as it were) I need another WikiDicki fallacy term for this!!! The argument that “enough is enough” fallacy.

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.

The cross is unconstitutional and spits all over the memories of non Christian fallen Marines.

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

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.

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 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.

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 :

“.. that line prohibits CONGRESS from establishing any religion as the official religion of the United States, and it prohibits CONGRESS from prohibiting the free exercise of religion – anywhere. The prohibitions are on CONGRESS — not the people.”

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?

If they wanted to honor their fallen, why not an upright with the Marine Corps emblem on it?

&

Why not a truly non-religious symbol. At least the Iwo Jima monument is tasteful and doesn’t throw religion in your face.

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.

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.