Decades old war monument in peril

[Texsox]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/05/sup...ref=mpstoryview

 

• Story Highlights
• A war memorial erected in the shape of a cross was covered by plywood
• The cross is located on government property
• Justices will decide whether the display violates the First Amendment
• It's "sort of odd that it just happens to be in that shape," said an ACLU attorney

Originally erected decades ago on private land, the land was donated to the government, now the monument is in danger. Congress, back when it was under REP control, worked out a smart solution of swapping 5 acres of and just outside the park for one acre, the acre this sits on.

 

I'll gladly with the GOP lawmakers on this issue.

[Kyyle23]

I see why the stink was raised about this though. A requested buddhist monument was rejected, its kind of hard to say one religious identifier is allowed and another is not allowed.

[FlaSoxxJim]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/05/sup...ref=mpstoryview

I'll gladly with the GOP lawmakers on this issue.

 

I haven't read the story yet, but I think I am in agreement. If the monument was constructed and erected when the site was private property then there is no federal religious bias at hand and I don't think the monument needs to come down.

 

[StrangeSox]

What he said.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I see why the stink was raised about this though. A requested buddhist monument was rejected, its kind of hard to say one religious identifier is allowed and another is not allowed.

 

Here it's a case of the existing monument being grandfathered in because of the circumstances. If researchers unearth native American religious artifacts on Federal lands, I'm going to be excited by the find and I'm not going to claim the government is supporting a particular religious viewpoint over all others by displaying those artifacts on site. At the same time, if a modern native American tribe (or any religious domination) asked Interior to sanction a new religious monument in a national park I would object.

[Kyyle23]

Here it's a case of the existing monument being grandfathered in because of the circumstances. If researchers unearth native American religious artifacts on Federal lands, I'm going to be excited by the find and I'm not going to claim the government is supporting a particular religious viewpoint over all others by displaying those artifacts on site. At the same time, if a modern native American tribe (or any religious domination) asked Interior to sanction a new religious monument in a national park I would object.

 

 

Another problem is that the original monument was erected with no permission from the landowner at the time. So its isnt as if it was ok to be there to begin with(regardless of meaning, Im not saying I disagree with it being there, but it was basically a 'squatting' monument).

 

The courts are going to ruin the meaning behind it, if it hasnt been done already.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Another problem is that the original monument was erected with no permission from the landowner at the time.

 

See? That's why I should reserve comments until I read the story. Which I prolly won't bother to do because I'm lazy.

 

[Texsox]

Reread the article. He did not ask the *government* for permission, the government was not the land owner than. It was more he did not ask for any special government designation for the memorial on private land.

[Texsox]

Riley Bembry, who served as a medic in World War I, helped erect the cross in 1934. It sits on a 4,000-foot plateau and was a place of reflection for many vets who retreated to the desert in part to recover from severe lung diseases caused by mustard gas attacks during the Great War. An annual Easter service is held there, but until recently only locals knew about it. The site is not on any maps.

 

Bembry never got permission from the government to erect the cross, but for decades nobody seemed to care. He was the caretaker of the memorial for five decades until he died in 1984.

 

In 1994, 1.6 million acres of desert -- including the land with the cross on it -- was transferred to the National Park Service. A few years later, a resident wanted to put up a Buddhist shrine near the cross. The request was denied.

[NorthSideSox72]

This is a corner case. A memorial built on private land, then bought by the NPS.

 

To me, personally, its part of history. The NPS should be looking to protect it just like ruins or artifacts, as previously stated. So leave it, and no, you can't build a bunch of other memorials here, because NOW its a national park IN SITU.

 

[StrangeSox]

Or they can choose to strip the most meaningful symbol of Christianity of all of its value by declaring it secular. Isn't that what various courts have done in the past?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Or they can choose to strip the most meaningful symbol of Christianity of all of its value by declaring it secular. Isn't that what various courts have done in the past?

 

I didn't even see where the had worked a collection box into the monument.

 

 

 

 

I Kid Because I Care^®

[CanOfCorn]

I didn't even see where the had worked a collection box into the monument.

 

 

 

 

I Kid Because I Care^®

 

Thread killer.

[Texsox]

I didn't even see where the had worked a collection box into the monument.

 

 

 

 

I Kid Because I Care^®

 

And there we have proof that it is not religious!

I Kid Because I Care^{® *}

 

*used by permission

[southsider2k5]

The really interesting part is that if things happen to where they have to take down the monument, it will make people think twice about donations like this to the Parks Department. Why would you donate when the possibility that they could come along later and destroy your work? I don't pretend to know the legal aspects of this case, but that hit me pretty quickly.

[FlaSoxxJim]

The really interesting part is that if things happen to where they have to take down the monument, it will make people think twice about donations like this to the Parks Department. Why would you donate when the possibility that they could come along later and destroy your work? I don't pretend to know the legal aspects of this case, but that hit me pretty quickly.

 

I sort of think things like this can pretty easily get lost if you are talking about a 1.6 million acre land grant.

[Texsox]

BTW, this is what is being argued over

 

[southsider2k5]

I sort of think things like this can pretty easily get lost if you are talking about a 1.6 million acre land grant.

 

And that could easily mean a loss of 1.6 million acres in the future. Heck how hard is it to envision a scenario where a developer promises to keep something in tact, in return for mining rights, logging rights, a mini-mall etc?

[Texsox]

The solution Congress approved, and the Courts rejected, sounded fine. Swap out the acreage for another tract. And I'd have no problem, in fact I would like it, if other symbols were added. I'd just like to see them in the same size and scope and with some tie in that shows the religious, and non religious, traditions of all that served and died in our defense and offense.

 

It seems crazy today, but this slippery slope ends at Arlington Cemetery when crosses are banned.

 

[bmags]

BTW, this is what is being argued over

 

 

That's it!?!?! What a monument. :thumbsdown:

[Texsox]

That's it!?!?! What a monument. :thumbsdown:

 

We are such a wealthy nation that we can argue this all the way to the Supreme Court, yet we can't offer medical care for the working poor?

[bmags]

I don't see how these two are related.

 

I'm pretty sure I've made better monuments in elementary school for the christmas tree.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm pretty sure I've made better monuments in elementary school for the christmas tree.

I thought you were being sarcastic with your first comment, but now I'm not sure. Are you really this flippant, and do you really miss the point this badly?

 

 

[bmags]

yeah yeah war on christians etc...blah blah

 

But seriously you'd think after 200 years Texans would be better at picking their battles. Someone could trip over that and break it. It looks more like a trail marker.

[NorthSideSox72]

yeah yeah war on christians etc...blah blah

 

But seriously you'd think after 200 years Texans would be better at picking their battles. Someone could trip over that and break it. It looks more like a trail marker.

War on Christians? I guess you really did miss the point.

 

Who cares how big/cool/shiny the monument is?