Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

generalgrog wrote:Can I call belief in transubstantiation a fruitcake belief?

Sure you can. And you can call priests who sexually abuse children pedophiles. And you can call bishops who oppose a woman's legal right to abortion narrow-minded. And you can say that the idea that contraception is inherently evil is stupid and bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The distinction is easy: the criticism must be of the argument/belief/practice/etc. The priest who sexually abuses kids is not a pedophile because I don't like him but because he sexually abuses kids.

Men of all faiths and creeds (or lack thereof) server in the United States military. Any symbol put up on federal land should be demonstrative of that, and all inclusive. A cross is a symbol of one particular religious group, and is thus by definition not all inclusive.

Frankly, I don't get why that's so hard to understand.

Also GG, your persecution schtick is old and tired. Please stop.

Ooh, this again...

Try to get it locked by 7:30 EST, I have playoff hockey to watch...

@streamdragon

following that logic...the Military should change a LOT of their symbols and practices then...from the ground up

for one thing...they shouldnt be ranking generals by stars

What's this about stars?

streamdragon wrote:Men of all faiths and creeds (or lack thereof) server in the United States military. Any symbol put up on federal land should be demonstrative of that, and all inclusive. A cross is a symbol of one particular religious group, and is thus by definition not all inclusive.

Frankly, I don't get why that's so hard to understand.

Also GG, your persecution schtick is old and tired. Please stop.

wow all inclusive so they should have put up religous symbols of each and every religious faith? I don't know if they could fit all of those on that piece of land.

GG

generalgrog wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Men of all faiths and creeds (or lack thereof) server in the United States military. Any symbol put up on federal land should be demonstrative of that, and all inclusive. A cross is a symbol of one particular religious group, and is thus by definition not all inclusive.

Frankly, I don't get why that's so hard to understand.

Also GG, your persecution schtick is old and tired. Please stop.

wow all inclusive so they should have put up religous symbols of each and every religious faith? I don't know if they could fit all of those on that piece of land.

GG

you took the wrong turn again, to be inclusive they should put up NO religious symbols. Its the easier and simpler solution.

You don't need a symbol of every religion. You need to have no religious symbols.

generalgrog wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Men of all faiths and creeds (or lack thereof) server in the United States military. Any symbol put up on federal land should be demonstrative of that, and all inclusive. A cross is a symbol of one particular religious group, and is thus by definition not all inclusive.

Frankly, I don't get why that's so hard to understand.

Also GG, your persecution schtick is old and tired. Please stop.

wow all inclusive so they should have put up religous symbols of each and every religious faith? I don't know if they could fit all of those on that piece of land.


GG

[facepalm]
And this is why we can't have nice things...

I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here, but should there be chaplains in the military at all? They're religious leaders being employed by the government to serve religious functions. If erecting a cross-shaped memorial is a violation of the establishment clause, wouldn't the commissioning of chaplains for explicitly religious purposes in the military also be a violation?

Nope. The chaplaincy is an example of religious accommodation.

Also, at Arlington National Cemetery, most of the headstones have a religious symbol on them denoting the religion of choice of the service member buried there. This is another example of religious symbols on public, government-owned land. Are these religious symbols a violation of the establishment clause? Should they be removed as well?

Nope. Those symbols reflect the religious affiliation of the individual buried there (at least theoretically) and do not promote or privilege any religion.

Hordini wrote:Also, at Arlington National Cemetery, most of the headstones have a religious symbol on them denoting the religion of choice of the service member buried there. This is another example of religious symbols on public, government-owned land. Are these religious symbols a violation of the establishment clause? Should they be removed as well?

Try it. Just try it.

The problem people with religious belifes with Atheists (a militant identity with much in commen with a relgion, as apposed to atheists, people who just don't beleive in a higher deity) have is that they attack, insult and seem to have no more motive than to spread hate.

The asumption that all christians are creationists or young earthers people, or the idea that any philisophical system can be baised in fact, or that being an atheist makes you better of more intelegent. This is what angers people. Just live and let live.

Most of the arguments people make against christianity, other than "There is no proof, I only belive what i can see" are baised on incorrect assumptions. For a belife system that claims to be interested in facts its amazing how many athists base hate on fiction & lies.

Hordini wrote:I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here, but should there be chaplains in the military at all? They're religious leaders being employed by the government to serve religious functions. If erecting a cross-shaped memorial is a violation of the establishment clause, wouldn't the commissioning of chaplains for explicitly religious purposes in the military also be a violation?

It's actually pretty murky. There's a good argument to be made that spending federal money on chaplains is establishing a religion. There's also a really good argument that not having military chaplains limits service members ability to practice their religion.

Manchu wrote:Nope. The chaplaincy is an example of religious accommodation.

Well, if the four Marines who this cross is supposed to memorialize were Christians, wouldn't this also be an example of religious accommodation?

How would the chaplaincy be an example of religious accommodation, but a cross to memorialize four Christian Marines wouldn't be?

Personally, I don't really see the existence of a cross-shaped memorial as something that shows preference to one religion. If a cross-shaped memorial was allowed, but say, a crescent-shaped memorial for Muslim service members was not, then that would definitely be a violation.

If one of the service-members who died was not a Christian, I think a better option than removing the memorial altogether would simply be for a group of atheist service members to erect what they felt was an appropriate memorial for a fallen atheist service member.

Bakerofish wrote:@streamdragon

following that logic...the Military should change a LOT of their symbols and practices then...from the ground up

for one thing...they shouldnt be ranking generals by stars

You'll get no disagreement from me. There are a lot of things not just in the military but all over the US government which are throwbacks that could easily be disposed of. The military is no different in this regard.

As to ranking generals by stars, context of the symbol is just as important as the symbol. The stars used to rank generals (and indeed the various symbols used for lower ranks) do not have any religious connotation, even if said symbol is used in religious symbolism elsewhere.

generalgrog wrote:wow all inclusive so they should have put up religous symbols of each and every religious faith? I don't know if they could fit all of those on that piece of land.GG

Or they could simply have none of them. The Vietnam Memorial are the Korean War Memorial are beautiful examples of monuments to fallen soldiers that does not show any sort of iconography. A vertical monument showcasing all the tombstone symbols used by the military (which includes an option for atheists) would also be perfectly acceptable.

Hordini wrote:I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here, but should there be chaplains in the military at all? They're religious leaders being employed by the government to serve religious functions. If erecting a cross-shaped memorial is a violation of the establishment clause, wouldn't the commissioning of chaplains for explicitly religious purposes in the military also be a violation?

Chaplains serve a variety of religions and uses in the military, and are there by their own desire. If the military prohibited a certain group from having a chaplain of that particular belief set, then there would be a problem. The issue presented in the OP is that currently the US military requires someone desiring to be a chaplain to be endorsed by their particular religious group, which some would say excludes atheist solders from having a chaplain of their won; hence Torpy's statement that atheist chaplains should be allowed.

Frazzled wrote:

Hordini wrote:Also, at Arlington National Cemetery, most of the headstones have a religious symbol on them denoting the religion of choice of the service member buried there. This is another example of religious symbols on public, government-owned land. Are these religious symbols a violation of the establishment clause? Should they be removed as well?

Try it. Just try it.

For the sake of disclosure, Frazzled, I would like to state that I am in no way supporting this idea. I just thought it was something that was worth mentioning in this discussion.

Hordini wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Hordini wrote:Also, at Arlington National Cemetery, most of the headstones have a religious symbol on them denoting the religion of choice of the service member buried there. This is another example of religious symbols on public, government-owned land. Are these religious symbols a violation of the establishment clause? Should they be removed as well?

Try it. Just try it.

For the sake of disclosure, Frazzled, I would like to state that I am in no way supporting this idea. I just thought it was something that was worth mentioning in this discussion.

Coolio.

Electro wrote:For a belife system that claims to be interested in facts its amazing how many athists base hate on fiction & lies.

It's not really too amazing. The historicity of Christianity is pretty big deal but there are lots of Christians who know nothing about history, either in terms of what it is or its content. And I'd say that the incidence of noticing apparent hypocrisy regarding some quality correlates positively with the apparent centrality of that quality.

Hordini wrote:

Personally, I don't really see the existence of a cross-shaped memorial as something that shows preference to one religion. If a cross-shaped memorial was allowed, but say, a crescent-shaped memorial for Muslim service members was not, then that would definitely be a violation.

If one of the service-members who died was not a Christian, I think a better option than removing the memorial altogether would simply be for a group of atheist service members to erect what they felt was an appropriate memorial for a fallen atheist service member.

I think this just won the thread....

GG

Manchu wrote:Nope. Those symbols reflect the religious affiliation of the individual buried there (at least theoretically) and do not promote or privilege any religion.

Then theoretically, how would a cross erected to memorialize four Christian Marines be a violation of the establishment clause?

I realize it might not be confirmed that they were all four Christians, but for the sake of argument, let's assume for a moment that they were.

Wasn't there some argument a while back because wiccans in the army were being prevented from requesting a pentagram on their tombstone? This is distant in my memory so don't recall details.

atheist chaplains

That's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one. What are they gonna do?

Soldier walks into office. "Sir, I've been really nervous lately. A body of mine got shot and it got me thinking of how quickly it can all end."

"It's okay Bob. Whatever happens there is no God, so when you die it'll just be over and we'll bury you in the ground, say some nice words, and be done with it."

Very encouraging

Hordini wrote:Also, at Arlington National Cemetery, most of the headstones have a religious symbol on them denoting the religion of choice of the service member buried there. This is another example of religious symbols on public, government-owned land. Are these religious symbols a violation of the establishment clause? Should they be removed as well?

As Manchu said, those icons reflect only the personal beliefs of the person interred there. The vast majority are crosses, yes, but there are numerous photos (link is a single example) that show the variety of markers used at Arlington.

Electro wrote:The problem people with religious belifes with Atheists (a militant identity with much in commen with a relgion, as apposed to atheists, people who just don't beleive in a higher deity) have is that they attack, insult and seem to have no more motive than to spread hate.

The asumption that all christians are creationists or young earthers people, or the idea that any philisophical system can be baised in fact, or that being an atheist makes you better of more intelegent. This is what angers people. Just live and let live.

Most of the arguments people make against christianity, other than "There is no proof, I only belive what i can see" are baised on incorrect assumptions. For a belife system that claims to be interested in facts its amazing how many athists base hate on fiction & lies.

Let us not pretend that all sides are not guilty of this, please?

Hordini wrote:
Well, if the four Marines who this cross is supposed to memorialize were Christians, wouldn't this also be an example of religious accommodation?
How would the chaplaincy be an example of religious accommodation, but a cross to memorialize four Christian Marines wouldn't be?
Personally, I don't really see the existence of a cross-shaped memorial as something that shows preference to one religion. If a cross-shaped memorial was allowed, but say, a crescent-shaped memorial for Muslim service members was not, then that would definitely be a violation.
If one of the service-members who died was not a Christian, I think a better option than removing the memorial altogether would simply be for a group of atheist service members to erect what they felt was an appropriate memorial for a fallen atheist service member.

The chaplaincy is a an attempt to give soldiers access to a religious leader of their particular faith. A memorial to four soldiers placed on federal land is nothing of the sort. I'm not sure how you'd compare the two.
If the soldiers who raised said memorial wanted to put it on their property, I would be behind them 100% whatever their beliefs and mine. The fact is that federal land is governed slightly differently than private land (such as that owned by a corporation or family). Would the memorial be any less a memorial if it were in some non-religious shape such as an obelisk? (Apologies to any religious groups I am unaware of that use the obelisk as a religious symbol!)

Edited to correct my URL above.

Hordini wrote:

Manchu wrote:Nope. Those symbols reflect the religious affiliation of the individual buried there (at least theoretically) and do not promote or privilege any religion.

Then theoretically, how would a cross erected to memorialize four Christian Marines be a violation of the establishment clause?

I realize it might not be confirmed that they were all four Christians, but for the sake of argument, let's assume for a moment that they were.

Okay, we will assume they were all Christians. The problem is that the memorial is not the same thing as a tombstone. It does not only speak to and about the individual Marines specifically memorialized but to all Marines as an example of the dignity of dying in the service of one's country. The issue is conflating service to the country with service to some religion.

streamdragon wrote:
The chaplaincy is a an attempt to give soldiers access to a religious leader of their particular faith. A memorial to four soldiers placed on federal land is nothing of the sort. I'm not sure how you'd compare the two.

I'm comparing the two because they're both involve religious symbolism, and both involve the use of either government funding or property. I realize that the chaplaincy includes chaplains that serve people of many/all faiths, but that doesn't change the fact that it still involves the government sponsoring religious services and training. If the government started giving funding to civilian religious leaders, even if it was funding all religious equally, it would clearly be a violation of the establishment clause. Why is it that when the government provides funding and training for religious leaders in the military, it's suddenly okay? There's nothing stopping service members from attending civilian churches, temples, mosques, or whatever else, but why should the government pay for these services?

Still believe atheists aren't religious?

Yes. In the exact why I believe water isn't dry.

It's called religious accommodation. There is a religious need that is obstructed because of government action, i.e., the circumstances of military service. The government is simply redressing the obstruction by accommodating the religious need.

Incidentally, this is also why there cannot be atheist chaplains.