Disrespect for those who deserve respect

[Tiggs]

Fair enough, although I don't think the main point is limited to whether the Supreme Court 'settling' the issue. I think it's reasonable to question whether comments made in rulings from Oklahoma counties ('star of david is exclusively sectarian') will be as impactful as statements by the majority of the US Supreme Court in this opinion, which include such gems that the Latin cross is a symbol to 'honor and respect' heroism, although I'm not sure to what planet they are referring.

I expect that most of the US wonders which planet several of the Supreme Court judges are on (I expect which judges, however, varies depending on your viewpoint). That said - I don't see how an opinion with five written dissents on an issue which isn't even a first amendment challenge is going to be treated as particularly authoritative in regards to the first amendment.

Actually it's not unless they just put the box back on in the last couple months; there's a photo of it from April of this year on the wiki page. It looks like the land transfer has gone through and it is now considered to be on private land, and I'm not sure but it may essentially be an island of private land enclosed by the Mojave preserve.

Fair enough - I haven't kept up with the recent developments after the Supreme's bounced it back to the lower courts.

I'm sure the Latin cross has existed before Christianity, it's obviously a very simple symbol, but I think modern history has as much relevance as far as ascertaining a meaning. The swastika was a nice positive symbol of luck and goodness prior to the 1930s or so.

For Hindus, Jains and Buddhists, the swastika still is.

Both beauty and meaning are always in the eye of the beholder.

Perhaps not, but the plus sign sure does.

I strongly suspect that the plus sign only has positive connotations...

I think this is the minor point where we differ, in the 21st Century, the Star of David has a different meaning depending on the context of what we are talking about, and although I think the Latin cross may also, I find the contexts to where it means anything except Christianity to be much fewer than the contexts where the Star of David can be used non-religiously as a reference to Jewish people or the nation of Israel for that matter. And given that the context is the Holocaust where Jewish people were more the target than Judaism in my view (it's tough teasing out motivations when Hitler had so many insane ones), I don't have a problem really with it's use on this memorial. I don't really have a problem with them disallowing it either because of it's ambiguity, but we definitely disagree on it's comparison to the cross; 'not so much' applies much better in my view to the cross, in the current century and definitely in America of all places.

I've always thought Hitler was pretty specific:

"The Jew has always been a people with definite racial characteristics and never a religion." - Mein Kampf.

Hitler believed that the Jewish religion was essentially a false front for the Jewish people, in order for them to be treated respectfully by people of other nations, a facade of which they could easily dispose of with a quick baptism, if push came to shove.

While I understand the argument that the Star of David has been used in modern times to identify Israel, the Jewish People and Judaism - I still maintain that just like the cross and the English / Greek / Swedish / Danish / Finnish flags etc. - a religious symbol on a flag does not make that symbol secular. The origin's of the star of David are from the Kaballah and it's associations are biblical in nature - i.e. David and Solomon.

I'll concede that the Latin cross has no modern day secular meaning, particularly. It should be fairly evident, however, that the Star of David has easily outpaced the Menorah as the most recognisable symbol of Judaism in modern society.

Given that both the cross and the Star of David are currently the most recognisable symbols of the US's two largest religions - IMO, neither of them should be used in government monuments.

On the other hand - you'll note the lack of actual lawsuits being raised. No-one particularly wants to go through the aggro of being accused of being anti-semitic by opposing a memorial to the holocaust, even if they're not.

That is probably true, not positive. I did see a reference to the House passing an act that would protect religious symbols on existing memorials or monuments I think, but it wasn't in wiki so it may have never made it through the Senate.

Congress can pass whatever acts they wish - without a clear constitutional amendment, however, the actual position on religious symbols on existing memorials will still ultimately be decided by the courts.

[+Liquid Gardens]

I strongly suspect that the plus sign only has positive connotations...

Ha! Good one!

[danielost]

Forward thinking nations don't just 'tolerate' other religions (and cultures), they celebrate them.

Since there are no forward thinking nations. The usa is the closest.

[The Silver Thong]

Since there are no forward thinking nations. The usa is the closest.

The USA as of now is in no position to claim anything of the sort religious wise or other. Where do you get this from as it is most backwork. The US is a nation on the verge of colapse and religion would be my first fear if I were there. The name of Christ has been stolen and used so many times the name means little to us more forward thinking nations.

[Skep B]

The USA as of now is in no position to claim anything of the sort religious wise or other. Where do you get this from as it is most backwork. The US is a nation on the verge of colapse and religion would be my first fear if I were there. The name of Christ has been stolen and used so many times the name means little to us more forward thinking nations.

verge of collapse is a bit melodramatic

[+and-then]

Are you mad?! USA invaded a sovereign nation that never attacked us based upon the lies of the previous administration, the head of which was a devout Christian.

USA has used its wealth and military power to dominate half of the world, party out of fear but mostly out of greed.

I don't recall Jesus ordering his followers to invade surrounding nations. Jesus certainly did not order his followers to suck as much wealth as possible from others or to favor allies over enemies. If USA was a Christian nation we would sink all of our warships and rush every penny we have to desperate nations to feed their starving millions.

USA is NOT a Christian nation! Lying that it is insults all non-Christian US citizens, living and dead. Christians DO NOT get to claim sole ownership of USA.

Christians, the next time you say that USA is a Christian nation because most US citizens are Christians you must also say that USA is a white nation because most US citizens are white. If one is true, both are true. <spoiler: both are false>

The majority of the Founding Fathers were not Christian. Most were deists, primarily Freemasons. They knew full well from European history that religion in government almost always goes very wrong. That's why they made it very clear that US government must forever be separate from all religions.

Not so - never was the intent - it was to stop the GOVERNMENT from forcing anyone to worship a state religion like C of E. The founders were devout men. Most of them regularly invoked Christ and his teaching. The separation dogma being preached by secularists today is just anti christian propaganda. There is no such restriction pushed against any other religions - especially Islam - and that because the whiners are gutless as well. They attack only those they have no real reason to fear. Very soon now they will have to face Christ Himself and i have to wonder if they will try to argue with Him that He isn't real

[danielost]

According to the bible they won't know the real one from the fake. But then again most christians won't know him either.

[danielost]

There is/was another group of solders that was/is being disrespected. The vietnam vets.

[ninjadude]

The separation dogma being preached by secularists today is just anti christian propaganda.

No it's not. It's a remembrance of where we came from. The considerable influence of my ancestor, Roger Williams, a deeply religious man, who felt that there should be "a high wall between government and religion".

[danielost]

That is so not true. I constantly hear them trashing muslims and pagans.

Right now we are at war with tn muslims. So they are dehumanized, to mke it easer to kill them. They do the same to us, the great devil.

[danielost]

That statement leaves me feeling dumbfounded. Because you're the source of the statement, how do you feel?

I don't know where you got thar statement, but I didn't make it.

[danielost]

No it's not. It's a remembrance of where we came from. The considerable influence of my ancestor, Roger Williams, a deeply religious man, who felt that there should be "a high wall between government and religion".

The government should niether promote or deny religeon in the public square. If someone else I paying for. Monument, as long as it follows local laws, it should be allowed. Yes, this include satan worshippers. We should not put religeon or none religeon before those monuments to our fallen heros. We should be respectable to those who have given their lives, so we can have this discussion.