![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
Here is a Greenwire article about the recent Supreme Court decision to side with the Dept. of Interior on its transfer of an acre of land to the VFW in order to preserve a religious icon. This is a pretty mundane issue, but some purists may agree with the minority that this is a support of a specific cult. It may seem strange that the VFW chose the symbolic tree of state killing to commemorate WW-I deaths. At least they don't set it on fire like the guys in that white supremacist organization.
I feel sorry for all of those families of war dead who are not members of the cult in question. I don't have any immediate family who participated in that conflict. If I did, I would not feel that the VFW represented those members.
I'm perfectly comfortable with the VFW monument in the national park, especially since they will own the land under the monument. What are your esteamed opinions on the matter?
I feel sorry for all of those families of war dead who are not members of the cult in question. I don't have any immediate family who participated in that conflict. If I did, I would not feel that the VFW represented those members.
I'm perfectly comfortable with the VFW monument in the national park, especially since they will own the land under the monument. What are your esteamed opinions on the matter?
(no subject)
Date: 28/4/10 23:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/4/10 00:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/4/10 17:06 (UTC)Good point.
From:Re: Good point.
From:Hmmm
From:Re: Hmmm
From:Re: Hmmm
From:(no subject)
Date: 29/4/10 00:21 (UTC)But really its just kind of a BFD issue.
(no subject)
Date: 29/4/10 00:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/4/10 15:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/4/10 17:55 (UTC)Grilling...
Date: 29/4/10 23:02 (UTC)Re: Grilling...
From:(no subject)
Date: 29/4/10 01:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/4/10 01:31 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:The Whole Truth
From:(no subject)
Date: 29/4/10 01:47 (UTC)Why?
(no subject)
Date: 29/4/10 16:15 (UTC)To have someone other than a co-religionist honor your sacrafice in any way is one of the greatest abominations a dead soldier can commit.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:It's quite simple...
Date: 29/4/10 23:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/4/10 01:58 (UTC)When one thinks of all the things which government has the capacity (historically) to do to screw you over, to be concerned or worried over the effect an inanimate object will have over you and the damage it might do to your liberties seems a might bit misplaced.
Ostensibly, one could conceive that a monument bearing a swastika would be more onerous to more people, and yet being a secular symbol, not run afoul of the principle with which the plaintiffs choose to make their case. Yet neither a monument featuring a cross nor a swastika in such cases has any further capacity to cause demonstrable harm than the other, at least of the type which is argued most in these cases.
(no subject)
Date: 29/4/10 02:26 (UTC)The monument is not the problem. The whole thing started when Buddhists asked to put up a monument nearby, and were denied. They moved the cross to VFW's hands to avoid an equal protection challenge.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 29/4/10 02:45 (UTC)http://www.cem.va.gov/hm/hmemb.asp
I love how the athiest symbol is an electron.
(no subject)
Date: 29/4/10 03:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/4/10 03:35 (UTC)Slack!
From:Re: Slack!
From:Why, it's...
From:Sufis...
Date: 29/4/10 23:21 (UTC)The Whole Truth
Date: 29/4/10 05:21 (UTC)"Congress had authorized a land swap with the Veterans of Foreign Wars, trading 1 acre of land around the cross in exchange for 5 privately owned acres elsewhere in the preserve."
Congress passed a bill requiring the swap (transfer) by the National Park Service. It was not a giveaway.
Re: The Whole Truth
Date: 29/4/10 23:05 (UTC)Re: The Whole Truth
From:(no subject)
Date: 29/4/10 05:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/4/10 09:20 (UTC)Any chance you feel happy for the families of the dead who were members?
Certainly!
Date: 29/4/10 23:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/4/10 14:08 (UTC)Justice Kennedy's view that the cross is not only a Christian symbol, but also carries some other sort of meaning to honor and respect heroism is pure bullshit. The only Jew I know of who wouldn't mind a cross being used to honor and respect their heroism is Jesus Christ himself. The Buddhists who wanted to put up their own monument clearly don't find it to be a universal symbol. Justice Stevens's dissent stated outright that he doesn't find it to be a universal symbol.
Are there other options here besides removing the cross? Sure-allow other religions, like the Buddhists, to put up their own symbols. But pretending that the cross is not a reference to Christianity is pathetic at best, and an attempt by Roman-Catholic justices to claim that their religion is the Universal one.
(no subject)
Date: 29/4/10 16:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/4/10 16:46 (UTC)To memorialize Buddhists who fought in WWI would be analogous to building a statue of Odin in a WWII Japanese Cemetery.
Buddhists in WW-I
Date: 29/4/10 23:13 (UTC)Read the damn books:
From:Re: Read the damn books:
From: