Crosses on the Side of the Road

[k]

Even the issue of what is put on a grave is coming into the political forum! What is the big deal here? How is it affecting you if someone is buried with a cross over their grave? If you don't want that, then request it, but don't go around plucking crosses off of the side of the road because it somehow offends you.

As a Christian, I have a serious problem with crosses being placed on graves by the government. It violates the Constitution and cheapens the integrity of the Cross, especially on the graves of those who had no ability to say whether they wanted it there or not. The Crosses were put there to glorify ourselves and make ourselves feel better about why so many were buried in the first place.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

So basically, some people are contesting that the memorial should be removed because of it’s shape. Sure nice to know the important issues of the world are being solved.

But wait – what’s this. It’s a US government website endorsing the Red Cross - even calling for donations! Oh my – the shape of their symbol looks like the Christian one too. Quick – to the complaint-mobile!

 

[MachZer0]

As a Christian, I have a serious problem with crosses being placed on graves by the government. It violates the Constitution and cheapens the integrity of the Cross, especially on the graves of those who had no ability to say whether they wanted it there or not. The Crosses were put there to glorify ourselves and make ourselves feel better about why so many were buried in the first place.

The crosses were not placed there by the government, but rather by a private, nonprofit organization. And while we cannot ask the fallen officers if they want the crosses there, we can ask their families who would be in the best position to know what the officers would have wanted, and the families who have spoken out want the crosses to remain while I know of none who objected to the crosses.

 

[Ampoliros]

So basically, some people are contesting that the memorial should be removed because of it’s shape. Sure nice to know the important issues of the world are being solved.

If the memorial was 12-foot statue of a nude (demonstrating the officers love of women and sculpture) instead of a cross, you don't think that Christians would complain because 'of the shape'?

 

[MaryS]

If the memorial was 12-foot statue of a nude (demonstrating the officers love of women and sculpture) instead of a cross, you don't think that Christians would complain because 'of the shape'?

That's not the normal way of honoring those who died while serving their country. And most states do have some limits on what obscenities can be placed in plain view.

If there were a family member of one of the fallen taking issue with the crosses, it would have a bit more credibility.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

That's two.

Why are people's screen names in your sig? I'm really nosey.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

If the memorial was 12-foot statue of a nude (demonstrating the officers love of women and sculpture) instead of a cross, you don't think that Christians would complain because 'of the shape'?

Well, apart from the fact that statues of 12 foot nude women are not generally used to mark a place of death…. I pass quite a few nude or partial nude sculptures ( usually in fountains ) – and no, Christians aren’t complaining.

It just seems to me another case of people taking a potentially reasonable premise to ridiculous extremes. The reasonable argument of “the govt shouldn’t force people to pray to a God they don’t believe in”, or “the govt shouldn’t give money to support a particular religion” becomes “Let’s complain about a stylised symbol to mark a death on a country highway because it’s shape might indicate support for a certain religion”.

 

[MaryS]

Well, apart from the fact that statues of 12 foot nude women are not generally used to mark a place of death…. I pass quite a few nude or partial nude sculptures ( usually in fountains ) – and no, Christians aren’t complaining.

It just seems to me another case of people taking a potentially reasonable premise to ridiculous extremes. The reasonable argument of “the govt shouldn’t force people to pray to a God they don’t believe in”, or “the govt shouldn’t give money to support a particular religion” becomes “Let’s complain about a stylised symbol to mark a death on a country highway because it’s shape might indicate support for a certain religion”.

Indeed! Nit-picking at it's finest.

The strange thing is that Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is the one who writes the majority of opinions upholding most liberal claims of "separation of church and state" and he's also one of the judges that was in the minority when the court decided that it was legal to burn our country's flag.

 

[k]

The crosses were not placed there by the government, but rather by a private, nonprofit organization. And while we cannot ask the fallen officers if they want the crosses there, we can ask their families who would be in the best position to know what the officers would have wanted, and the families who have spoken out want the crosses to remain while I know of none who objected to the crosses.

It is irrelevent who placed them there, and likewise with the family members' opinons; plus this does not even touch on the unknown soldiers. The reason why this it does not matter is because it is on government property. If some non-profit group wanted crescent and moon statues in Arlington we ALL know the government would say no.

 

[MethodMan]

It is irrelevent who placed them there, and likewise with the family members' opinons; plus this does not even touch on the unknown soldiers. The reason why this it does not matter is because it is on government property. If some non-profit group wanted crescent and moon statues in Arlington we ALL know the government would say no.

We do?

 

[k]

We do?

It is obvious.

Plus, it doesn't change the fact it is on government property. Endorsing any religion violates the Constitution.

 

[MethodMan]

It is obvious.

Plus, it doesn't change the fact it is on government property. Endorsing any religion violates the Constitution.

No - It does not!

 

[k]

No - It does not!

Oh, I guess the exclamation point solidifies that.

 

[MachZer0]

It is irrelevent who placed them there,

And yet that is the argument that was being made. Having disproved that, are we moving on to a different approach. aka, moving the goalposts?

 

[k]

And yet that is the argument that was being made. Having disproved that, are we moving on to a different approach. aka, moving the goalposts?

NO, it does not matter WHO paid for them...the government permitting them to be there is the same as the government putting them there.

 

[MethodMan]

NO, it does not matter WHO paid for them...the government permitting them to be there is the same as the government putting them there.

And the Gov't allows idiots to broadcast smut over the Gov't owned airwaves, does that mean the Gov't is promoting porn?

 

[12volt_man]

As a Christian, I have a serious problem with crosses being placed on graves by the government. It violates the Constitution

By this logic, do you believe that we should do away with the crosses marking the graves at Arlington National Cemetary?

 

[12volt_man]

NO, it does not matter WHO paid for them...the government permitting them to be there is the same as the government putting them there.

No. The courts have ruled over and over that allowing religious displays does not establish religion and is not tantamount to government endorsement of religion.

 

[k]

And the Gov't allows idiots to broadcast smut over the Gov't owned airwaves, does that mean the Gov't is promoting porn?

Not sure what is being referenced here...but if porn is being disseminated over government owned airwaves then yes, that would be true. Of course, what is regulated by the government is quite different from what is owned by the government.

 

[k]

By this logic, do you believe that we should do away with the crosses marking the graves at Arlington National Cemetary?

Yes.