Title: High Court Debates Religious Symbol
Description: On Public Land.
Chin - October 7, 2009 09:47 PM (GMT)
Discuss. How should the court rule in this case?
WASHINGTON – As the Supreme Court weighed a dispute over a religious symbol on public land Wednesday, Justice Antonin Scalia was having difficulty understanding how some people might feel excluded by a cross that was put up as a memorial to soldiers killed in World War I.
"It's erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead," Scalia said of the cross that the Veterans of Foreign Wars built 75 years ago atop an outcropping in the Mojave National Preserve. "What would you have them erect?...Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Muslim half moon and star?"
OakBan - October 7, 2009 09:53 PM (GMT)
personally i think they should rule in favor of keeping it there.
however it is construed as public land so i think they will vote against it.
sadly, its come to this.
Chin - October 7, 2009 10:01 PM (GMT)
What is your basis for the argument that it should remain?
OakBan - October 7, 2009 10:08 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Chin @ Oct 7 2009, 02:01 PM) |
| What is your basis for the argument that it should remain? |
its my opinion that it serves a reminder to those who served their country. it was built 75 years ago before this PC stuff was around.
Chin - October 7, 2009 10:09 PM (GMT)
So, it is historical, and should be preserved that way, regardless of it's religious inference?
OakBan - October 7, 2009 10:20 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Chin @ Oct 7 2009, 02:09 PM) |
| So, it is historical, and should be preserved that way, regardless of it's religious inference? |
that as well, but more for what it represents.
Chin - October 7, 2009 10:22 PM (GMT)
Meaning that it is a Christian symbol and it is important to you for that reason?
OakBan - October 7, 2009 10:43 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Chin @ Oct 7 2009, 02:22 PM) |
| Meaning that it is a Christian symbol and it is important to you for that reason? |
no, sorry --- should have been more specific. i was referring to the cross being a memorial to soldiers killed in World War I.
Chin - October 7, 2009 10:47 PM (GMT)
Right.
As I said, it commemorates a historical event and memorializes those killed, regardless of any particular religious connotation.
OakBan - October 8, 2009 12:09 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Chin @ Oct 7 2009, 02:47 PM) |
Right.
As I said, it commemorates a historical event and memorializes those killed, regardless of any particular religious connotation. |
so i assume you don't wish to see if removed?
saw a snippet on the news about this issue and one guy made a comment
about there being no religion in the foxhole.
thought that was interesting.
Chin - October 8, 2009 12:12 AM (GMT)
I've not stated my opinion.
What are your thoughts about transferring the property to private ownership?
OakBan - October 8, 2009 12:17 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Chin @ Oct 7 2009, 04:12 PM) |
I've not stated my opinion.
What are your thoughts about transferring the property to private ownership? |
i think if it has to come to that it is a slap in the face of those who served their country and those who are so 'offended' by this need to grow up.
Dal1as - October 8, 2009 02:20 AM (GMT)
This is a fucking joke. I'm agnostic but this memorial was build for men who were a LOT braver than tha fucks fighting the fight we are talking about right now. Fuck the lawyers in this case.
Kali Maa - October 9, 2009 02:54 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Chin @ Oct 7 2009, 03:47 PM) |
Discuss. How should the court rule in this case?
WASHINGTON – As the Supreme Court weighed a dispute over a religious symbol on public land Wednesday, Justice Antonin Scalia was having difficulty understanding how some people might feel excluded by a cross that was put up as a memorial to soldiers killed in World War I.
"It's erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead," Scalia said of the cross that the Veterans of Foreign Wars built 75 years ago atop an outcropping in the Mojave National Preserve. "What would you have them erect?...Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Muslim half moon and star?" |
I don't know how the court "should" rule on this... but it's my opinion that most people view death in nothing but an emotional way, and therefore from the aspect of respecting the family, it's wrong to remove anything that is symbolic of the deceased's memory.