MILITARY: Atheist group objects to memorial cross at Camp Pendleton

[rug]

Scott Radetski, Karen Mendoza, Jon Gross and Shannon Book work to carry a 13-foot cross to the top of a mountain at Camp Pendleton on Nov. 10 to recognize those Marines who have fallen or been wounded in combat. The original cross was carried up by seven people, and three of those original seven were killed in combat in Iraq. Radetski was a chaplain during the battle for Fallujah, Mendoza's husband was killed in combat, and Gross and Book also served in Iraq during the battle for Fallujah. (RICK LOOMIS / Los Angeles Times )

By MARK WALKER [e-mail] North County Times | Posted: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 6:00 pm

An atheist group lodged objections Wednesday to a cross that was erected on a Camp Pendleton hillside on Veterans Day, saying the memorial to fallen troops is a Christian symbol that isn't appropriate on federal land.

Jason Torpy of the Washington-based Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers said his group does not believe the cross put up Friday is constitutional and has asked base officials to explain why it is being allowed.

"No cross or statue of Jesus represents military service," Torpy said in a written statement. "Military service is being exploited to secure unconstitutional Christian privilege."

The 13-foot cross was carried to the site and put up by a group of Iraq war veterans and two widows of Camp Pendleton Marines killed in combat.

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/military/military-atheist-group-objects-to-memorial-cross-at-camp-pendleton/article_1a2deffe-1b96-5c90-8c9e-66a8155bc897.html

[NMMNG]

1. "No cross or statue of Jesus represents military service,"

They're right.

[msongs]

2. military chaplains only believe in the 9 commandments, 1 commandment is expendable to them nt

[beam me up scottie]

3. If God wanted a cross there he wouldn't have burned the last one to the ground.

Torpy, who is an Iraq war veteran, acknowledged the suffering of the families involved and said he is sensitive to the potential fallout the objection may generate.

"Those Marines were honoring their fallen comrades, of that I am certain," said Torpy, a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point who spent 10 years in the Army, leaving as a captain in 2005 after tours of duty in Kuwait and Iraq. "Their desire to erect a large cross to honor their memory is perfectly acceptable, so long as it is on church land or their own property, not on federal land."

The cross's establishment continues what Torpy said is a trend of religious monuments being confused with secular war memorials.

Emphasis mine just in case anyone questions the patriotism of this veteran.

[NMMNG]

7. "a trend of religious monuments being confused with secular war memorials."

The easy way to determine if it's truly secular; see which group screeches when someone challenges it. I'm amazed how many times some group or judge declares a cross "secular" while it's only Christians who are rending their garments over any attempt to have it removed from public land.

[beam me up scottie]

9. It's like we're taking their blankie away.

Hypocrites and bigots, atheists aren't the ones screaming bloody murder when muslim-Americans try to build a mosque in this country.

[NMMNG]

10. They're so obsessed with tagging every possible site

with their gang signs. Then we're somehow in the wrong when we object.

[beam me up scottie]

11. Yes, good analogy.

Reminds me of dogs peeing on everything in sight, too.

I've heard neutering helps stop that behaviour.

[laconicsax]

4. Rec'd to zero n/t

[humblebum]

5. I guess the National Cathedral needs to come down, too.

Must be part of the trend.

[darkstar3]

6. Name one person who has expressed that desire.

Renaming it would be a good thing, but there's no point in destroying it.

Any response that doesn't provide a link or a quote from a person expressing the hyperbolic desire you claim exists here will be considered trolling.

[humblebum]

8. You have a very bad habit of reading things into statements that

just aren't there.

[Humanist_Activist]

13. Why? Its privately funded, and its actual name is the Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul

It doesn't sit on public land.

[Goblinmonger]

14. Don't let facts get in your way.

They just cloud up the hyperbole.

[humblebum]

15. Congress designated the Washington National Cathedral

as the "National House of Prayer".

[Goblinmonger]

16. Does that make you feel good? n/t

[humblebum]

17. Just trying to keep the facts straight. nt

[Goblinmonger]

18. Fine. That doesn't refute

that it is on private property, is privately funded, and National Cathedral is not IT'S formal name.

Don't you think that Congress is crossing the line with their designation? Seems like state-sponsored religion to me. Certainly you would agree that theocracy is a bad thing and this gets us a step closer to that. So Muslims that want to pray don't have a National House of Prayer for them?

[cleanhippie]

19. Wow, he has hijacked ANOTHER thread.

The ability to troll is strong in this one.

[Goblinmonger]

21. .......

[NMMNG]

32. ...

[humblebum]

20. I do not interpret the Constitution as mandating "absolute" separation. nt

[Goblinmonger]

22. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Naming something a "national house of prayer" or whatever they call it pretty much seems like the definition of establishing a religion, doesn't it?

[humblebum]

23. Atheists love to leave out that "free exercise thereof" part. Makes a big difference.

The First Amendment does not say "or allow religious practices to only be held on private, not public property." That word "free" just screws everything up.

[Goblinmonger]

24. .....

[humblebum]

25. So when you can't handle the truth, you bring out the troll spray.

Quite telling. Be happy in your fantasy.

[Goblinmonger]

26. Well

if you don't realize that some instances deal with the establishment of religion (as would be the case with the "national house of prayer") and some deal with free exercise (such as not allowing kids to have a religious based club in school when other non-academic clubs do exist), then either there isn't much help for you or you are just trolling. Either way, not worthy of more of my time.

[humblebum]

27. And that makes no sense at all. Establishment of religion as the Founders

used it meant that there not be am established state religion, which there is not. And by "free exercise", they meant free exercise. And that is exactly the way it was usually carried out in practice.

[Goblinmonger]

28. Our state has deemed that Christianity is the religion

for which our "National House of Prayer" will be housed. Seems pretty much like establishing that as our religion.

I can't imagine the brain explosions that would happen if a Mosque were named our National House of Prayer instead.

[dmallind]

82. How can that be when the "thereof" clearly means both clauses refer to the same thing.

If only a state religion was covered by the establishment clause, only a state religion would be protected under the free exercise clause. Since this is patently absurd logically, legally and linguistically, the only sensible reading is that both clauses refer to any religious expression.

[humblebum]

84. If you have any background in American history, then you would

know quite well that the object certainly was not to interfere with religion, but to avoid an established state religion, the kind of established state religions common to most European countries at the time. An examination of how religion was addressed immediately thereafter and forward in time shows that religious expression, for the most part, was freely expressed without government interference. Unless, one happened to be Native American.

[darkstar3]

85. Thank you for showing

that you have a very shallow background in American history. The only people I've ever heard spout that nonsense about how the Constitution was never meant to limit religion are right-wing evangelicals. The truth is far less complimentary to religion. Having left behind a nation with a history of religious abuses, the writers of our country's founding documents meant to ensure that no religion would be allowed to rise to a place of power within this new nation.

[humblebum]

86. Then would you care to explain the 2nd Great Awakening?

If you call that restrained, I'd like to see unrestrained. Appears like it was pretty free to me. Of course there could be no established religion. That was the restraint. Now if you see anything else written into the Constitution, just let me know. And I am aware that there can be no religious test for public office (article 6). It wasn't until the 14th Amendment came along that it became applicable to the states. Even then, free expression of religion was strong.

[darkstar3]

87. Just because the ideas present in the writing have been violated repeatedly

doesn't negate their existence.

[humblebum]

88. I just gave the ideas present in the writing. NO established religion

and free exercise thereof. We are discussing the Constitution, right? I do agree that there is some ambiguity in the the first Amendment regarding religion and it was most likely purposely written as such, because the future of the nation was quite unknown. Nonetheless, Government had very little control over the free expression of religion.

[darkstar3]

89. "Government had very little control over the free PRIVATE expression of religion."

FTFY.

Now go RTFM.

[humblebum]

90. And just how do you define PRIVATE? Because the same people that

contributed to the writing of the Constitution also allowed for the installation of chaplains in both houses of the Senate and images of religious figures on national monuments, as well as commissioning religious groups to send missionaries to preach to tribes of Native Americans. And then there was Lincoln in his Thanksgiving Day Proclamation - "...to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens."

[darkstar3]

91. Which only goes to show that your people started early.

[humblebum]

92. And there were also communities of Jews who were allowed to worship

in there own temples, and Catholics came to the US in huge numbers, starting around the mid-1800's, establishing their Parishes, and even Muslims, though very small in numbers, were establishing mosques around the early 20th century on the plains of N. Dakota.

[humblebum]

93. Who is your people? My grandparents and great grandparents were Jewish

and Russian Orthodox.

[dmallind]

94. hahahahahahh!!

So WHAT does the thereof mean to you precisely? You think the guys who wrote it were too damn stupid to not see that "thereof" unquestionably means the two clauses refer to the same thing then? Really? Is your "grasp of American history" that enslaved to protecting your own bias?

[moobu2]

12. Telephone pole death crosses

should be outlawed for purely aesthetic reasons regardless.

[GliderGuider]

29. I thought it only took one guy to carry the first one up a hill...

So it now takes four to seven Marines to equal one Semitic socialist hippie?

[rug]

30. No, Simon the Cyrene was forced to help.

After the third time he fell, I believe.

[LARED]

31. No wonder Atheists are often viewed unfavorably

"The memorial cross activity ... was conducted by private individuals acting solely in their personal capacities," the statement from the base public affairs office said. "As such, they were not acting in any official position or capacity that may be construed as an endorsement of a specific religious denomination by the Department of Defense or the U.S. Marine Corps."

.....

Austin and Zurheide were killed in that fight, while Mendoza died in a different 2005 battle in Iraq. Zembiec was killed in a 2007 raid in the city of Baghdad.

The widows of Zembiec and Mendoza took part in Friday's effort.


Clear case of Christan zealots trying to institute a Theocracy.

What's next scrubbing all the crosses and star's of David off the tombstones at Arlington National Cemetery?

[MarkCharles]

33. What part of " to the top of a mountain at Camp Pendleton" (taxpayer supported..

military base) escapes your attention and enables you to impose your beliefs about atheists upon the rest of us who believe in a clear separation of church and state?

[LARED]

34. My beliefs have nothing to do with this issue

Let me add it is unclear to me how these marines and the widows are imposing any belief on anyone.

Putting aside your belief in a clear absolute inviolable separation of church and state (a clear minority opinion), are you making the argument that the mere vision of a cross on a taxpayer funded asset is establishing a religion, or is imposing a belief on anyone? To maintain that clear separation of church and state shall we scrub off all the crosses and other religious symbols at national cemeteries? The supreme court? How about the Washington Monument. Are you aware the capstone is inscribed with the Latin words Laus Deo (praise to God) on one side. Shall we erase that as well?

Camp Pendleton has something like 100,000 people on base everyday and a long history of service. Do you expect all religious expression to be banned.

I respect Atheists right to be heard and respected. Seems like some are far more interested in getting attention than being respectful to others.

[MarkCharles]

35. belief in a clear absolute inviolable separation of church and state (a clear minority opinion)

Only Thomas Jefferson thought that. No one else in the history of the writing of the Constitution believed that, but it got in there anyway? Tell us another revision of history, when you can make it up.

" shall we scrub off all the crosses and other religious symbols at national cemeteries?"

Try to get a hold of the concept of deeded burial sites. It would help you out a lot. Try researching "deeded burial sites" on the Google machine.

"Camp Pendleton has something like 100,000 people on base everyday and a long history of service."

If you can show more than 20,000 people living at that US military base, bring us all a link.

"Do you expect all religious expression to be banned." I guess you're asking a question without a question mark.

Where, on Earth did you come up with censorship of religious expression from forbidding the act of placing a cross, (a distinct Christian symbol) on a hillside owned and controlled by the taxpayers? Churches are the place for religious expression, not taxpayer maintained military bases. What is so hard for you to grasp about that concept?

"I respect Atheists right to be heard and respected" No you don't, because you have a religious agenda that should trump any beliefs in the Constitution, and should allow taxpayer funded land to be used for the display of Christian symbols. You are as transparent as your Christian bias which refuses to hold taxpayer funded property exempt from such displays.

Bottom line: you want to shove your religious agenda down the throats of all taxpayers, and you don't care about atheists' claims at all, when it challenges your religious beliefs and agenda.

And I thought Christians claimed to be honest and forthright about their self knowledge and sense of justice under law.

[LARED]

39. Here's your link

Present

The base's diverse geography, spanning over 125,000 acres (506 km2), plays host to year-round training for Marines in addition to all other branches of the U.S. military. Amphibious and sea-to-shore training takes place at several key points along the base's 17 miles (27 km) of coastline. The main base is in the Mainside Complex, at the southeastern end of the base, and the remote northern interior is an impact area. Daytime population is around 100,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Corps_Base_Camp_Pendleton

[westerebus]

40. 1777 The virginia statute for religious freedom.

Thomas Jefferson. You really need to check it. You might even gain some perspective.

There are no deeded sites at Arlington, I don't know about the other National Military Cemeteries.

Have you ever been to Camp Pendleton? A Marine division is 18,000 troops.

The official song of the Marines is the Marine Hymn. That's right. HYMN.

Last stanza: If the Army and the Navy

ever look on Heaven's scenes

They will find it guarded by

the United States Marines.

[LARED]

43. Do you really believe banning a cross on a military base

was what Jefferson had in mind? And you accuse me of historical revisionism. Ha!

Do you have any evidence National Cemetery plots are deeded? How about a link

because you have a religious agenda that should trump any beliefs in the Constitution, and should allow taxpayer funded land to be used for the display of Christian symbols.

The Constitution does not forbid religious symbols to be displayed on tax funded land. That's a lie and you know it. I know you believe that the mere presence if a religious symbol should be feared and loathed due to some belief that it entices zombie hoards of theocrats to eat Atheists, but aside from your vivid imaginings civil society manges to survive in the face of such perceived harm.

No I have a freedom of expression agenda. It's the height of irony that militate atheist want to be heard and respected, but can't seem to allow other people that same courtesy if it occurs on property paid for with taxpayer funds. I fully understand the Constitution is the only thing that protect my choice of religion from state interference. The constitution protect religious expression, it shouldn't hinder it. The idea that a taxpayer funded assets of any kind prevents people from expressing ANY religious belief or symbol is preposterous. I do agree that not ALL religious expression or symbols should be permitted on taxpayer funded property, but there is a balance between freedom of expression and establishing a state religion. Something militate atheists don't seem to understand. To them it's an all or nothing agenda.

And I thought Christians claimed to be honest and forthright about their self knowledge and sense of justice under law.


The irony is stunning.

[Major Nikon]

69. Here is what the Constitution does allow...

A government religious practice or symbol will survive an Establishment Clause challenge when it
(1) has a secular purpose, (2) has a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) does not foster excessive state entanglement with religion. Buono I, supra, at 1214–1215 (citing Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602, 612–613 (1971)).

The cross violates at least two and perhaps all three items on the Lemon test.

[MarkCharles]

70. Very good research! Thanks! n/t

[humblebum]

71. That "Lemon test" is still somewhat ambiguous, and I suppose that to be intentional. nt

[Major Nikon]

72. I don't really know what's ambiguous about it

#3 is certainly subjective, so perhaps somewhat ambiguous, but the first two are pretty cut and dried.

[cleanhippie]

77. Only ambiguous to the willfully ignorant.

[humblebum]

73. If it had somehow been decided that those who had died in battle

would be honored by displays of their respective affiliations' religious symbols, then such a display could be considered secular and neither advancing nor inhibiting religion. And certainly any entanglement with the state would not be needed.

[Major Nikon]

74. It's a pretty hard argument that a cross has a secular purpose

I don't think it's possible to clear that hurdle in this case. Another hurdle that the cross doesn't seem likely to clear is that placing a large cross in a prominent position on a military base can only have the effect of advancing Christianity. Even if you could somehow twist logic and succeed on the secular purpose test, anyone who saw that cross and didn't know its purpose could only conclude that it's a promotion of Christianity.

I don't really understand why people of faith are so obsessed with promoting their religion on public property. It's not as if there aren't plenty of private institutions fully willing to sponsor such a memorial. If they are so intent on only honoring veterans who chose one particular god and excluding the other veterans who didn't, let them do so on property that's much more appropriate for that purpose. Seems like a no-brainer.

[NMMNG]

75. There's a very easy way to determine if a symbol, monument, etc, is secular

Challenge it. See which people/groups howl in protest. If it's only religious people/groups the object in question clearly isn't secular.

[cleanhippie]

76. That is a great point.

[laconicsax]

79. +1

[cleanhippie]

78. Perhaps, but it HAS been decided that religious symbols on public property DOES advance a religion.

So I'm not sure what your point is at all.







Oh, right, you don't have one.

[humblebum]

80. So is that an all inclusive decision that ANY religious symbol advances religion? nt

[cleanhippie]

81. I have no idea what you are talking about.

But then again, coherence was never a strong point in your posts.

[humblebum]

83. Yes, I agree that term "any" can be a zinger. nt

But, actually religious symbols permanently affixed to national monuments have been part of American history since the Founding, and are still there. However, wherever they exist, they are most often included with symbols of other religions or symbols representing other recognized entities. For example, I believe Moses and the Ten Commandments are carved alongside Confucius and Solon at the Supreme Court building.

[Goblinmonger]

36. Here's the difference between this and Arlington

The people putting this up said it was a memorial for those that died. Those that died are not all Chrisitian. This is them putting THEIR religious symbol up on public land.

In Arlington, the INDIVIDUAL'S family gets to decide which religious synbol they want on that person's gravestone. There are many, many options for what that will be. What would you think if they all had to have the Islamic crescent?

[LARED]

38. But if you believe in a clear, complete, separation of church and state

how do you justify religious symbols on taxpayer funded property? I know we are talking about tombstones, something that is quite personal and potentially painful for people, but in order to protect the US from zombie hoards of theocrats removing those symbols should be a priority.

[NMMNG]

41. There's a thing called nuance

Some people get it. Some apparently don't.

[LARED]

42. I am really glad you brought this up for discussion

Militate atheists seemingly have little appreciation for nuance, (unless it used to advocate their position).

If your position is that any and all religiosity expressed on tax funded property is establishing a state sanctioned religion, why do I not hear atheists clamouring to remove religious symbols from tombstones on taxpayer funded property. I'm guessing taxpayer even pay for the tombstones. Atheists should be outraged.

Compared to people replacing a cross that stood for many years in order to honor some fallen soldiers, friends, and family at no cost to the taxpayer, the tombstone scandal should be on every theocrat-fearing atheists hit list for outrage.

Yet so far not one has made this the cause-du-jour. It must be that nuance thingy

[NMMNG]

44. It *is* that nuance thingy

An individual tombstone on an individual grave signifies one person (typically); the person buried in that grave. If there's a pithy quote or religious symbol on that tombstone it's specific to that individual and the symbols aren't limited to one religion. Most atheists, I think, would be willing to let such things slide even in a public/taxpayer funded cemetery.

A religious monument such as a giant cross erected on a public hill, stone tablet of the 10 Commandments in front of City Hall or a statue of Jesus in the middle of the public park is entirely different. It implies that the state or the city, on behalf of all the residents, is endorsing a particular religion. The fact that in 99% of cases the monuments are Christian in nature only reinforces this idea. Some people claim that giant crosses and the like are "secular" but the fact that it's Christians who wail when their presence is challenged proves the contrary.


You opine about "militate" atheists. Asking for the laws of our nation to be followed isn't militant. Asking that our tax dollars not be used to fund state endorsed religion isn't militant.

If you want to address "militant" people go after those who resort to vandalism and death threats when anybody challenges their belief system. Go after the people who think "god says" gives them the right to do http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2011/11/16/obama-and-the-bishops-is-the-white-house-caving-on-birth-control-coverage">whatever harm they want to others with impunity. Go after the ones who are actually oppressing and hurting people rather than the ones who are merely pissing you off by challenging the status-quo.

[LARED]

45. We will have to disagree about some of this

Most atheists, I think, would be willing to let such things slide even in a public/taxpayer funded cemetery

I agree most would let that slide; justifiably. Just like many atheists don't concern themselves with trivial matters like the national motto, or a cross being replaced at Camp Pendleton. There are ideologically pure atheists that are quite passionate about removing every religious symbols on tax payer funded land that I would consider hypocrites if they let religious symbol "slide" on taxpayer funded cemeteries. No DU purists seem to be willing so far to take up this cause.

Asking for the laws of our nation to be followed isn't militant.

I don't believe there are any laws prohibiting what is going on at Camp Pendleton. If there was I would expect people to obey those laws.


Asking that our tax dollars not be used to fund state endorsed religion isn't militant.

As far as camp Pendleton goes, it not clear how any tax dollars are being used to replace the cross. Even if there are small costs associated with upkeep or something like that it is still not clear to me how replacing the cross is establishing a state religion.

[NMMNG]

46. The problem is you're not seeing the difference

I agree most would let that slide; justifiably. Just like many atheists don't concern themselves with trivial matters like the national motto, or a cross being replaced at Camp Pendleton. There are ideologically pure atheists that are quite passionate about removing every religious symbols on tax payer funded land that I would consider hypocrites if they let religious symbol "slide" on taxpayer funded cemeteries.


There's a difference between a headstone that represents an individual, which happens to be on public land and a monument on public land, the national motto or a religious phrase in our Pledge of Allegiance. The former is obviously specific to the person represented by the headstone. The latter implies that it represents the community at large, and that the community at large (the city, the state or the nation) endorses it.



I don't believe there are any laws prohibiting what is going on at Camp Pendleton.

The First Amendment.



As far as camp Pendleton goes, it not clear how any tax dollars are being used to replace the cross. Even if there are small costs associated with upkeep or something like that it is still not clear to me how replacing the cross is establishing a state religion.

It's on taxpayer supported land. I never said it was establishing a state religion. It is, however, endorsing a specific religion with taxpayer funds. There's no secular purpose for a giant cross. Its only function is to promote Christianity. If it's on taxpayer funded land the only thing a person can presume is that the government is promoting Christianity.

[LARED]

47. I clearly see the difference between that activity and state religion

and I think that difference applies here.

From the article

"The memorial cross activity ... was conducted by private individuals acting solely in their personal capacities,"

Is there any great difference between this activity and "a headstone that represents an individual, which happens to be on public land"?

[Goblinmonger]

49. So then there should be no problem

with someone putting a Muslim crescent up there next to the cross. And a huge sign that says, "there is no god only myth." If you allow one, you need to allow them all (we will see this come up with the nativity scenes during Christmas on public property--something which I'm sure you have no problem with but many others do).


Look to the Utah memorial crosses case that the SCOTUS recently rejected to see how the law applies to issues like this.

[LARED]

50. If someone at Camp Pendleton wants to do this and

they follow whatever rules are in place I have absolutely no problem with it. That IMO is what the Constitution protects. The framers never envisioned the Constitution being used to scrub all religious references from the public square.

[Goblinmonger]

52. Putting on this federal land is the same as using a school's microphone

It is the governments position. You can't say prayer before a sporting event on the school microphone and you can't put a cross up on the governments property. Google excessive entanglement if you are unfamiliar with that concept.

Um, Madison (you know, they guy who pretty much wrote the Constitution) wanted to make it illegal for ministers to run for national office because then they would take a salary and that would be the government supporting religion. Jefferson argued for a "wall of separation" between the two. So you may want to think a little more before you toss around the "founders wanted this" BS.

[NMMNG]

64. You'd probably see a lot of Christians screeching in protest ,

or worse, if that happened. It's strange how they see nothing offensive about their idols being plastered all over hill and dale. The second anybody else tries to put up anything--even if it's on private land--it's suddenly a crisis. Meanwhile we're told none of this has to do with promoting a particular religion or religious privilege.

But keep pretending atheists peacefully using the legal system is the worst "miltitancy" you've ever encountered. You fit in with some of this forum's finest when you do.

[Goblinmonger]

48. Because putting them there is not an establishment by the government

The individual has the ability to put them there or not. The individual isn't forced to use just the christian symbol as there are a multitude to choose from rather. If the US had the cross grave markers they have in France, then it would be a problem. It is a pretty simple balance of establishment and free exercise. The soldiers have the free exercise to put the symbol of their faith (or lack thereof since there is an atheist symbol) and the government is not establishing a specific religion or religion over non-religion since it is up to the individual.

You really don't see the difference between an individual choosing one of many different symbols for an individual marker and a cross being put up to honor "all" that died?

[humblebum]

51. I favor the free exercise of religion allowed by the First Amendment.

Freedom really is not that difficult of a concept to grasp. It is not "free exercise" but only on private property, but rather "free exercise thereof" - period.

[Goblinmonger]

53. Amazing how you theists forget the "establishment of religion" part of the 1st Amend. n/t

[humblebum]

56. Funny? I wasn't aware there was an established state religion. But then,

referring to the Constitution would be a logical fallacy of appealing to it as an authority, right? I've learned how you think.
Instead, I should be checking with an expert like yourself, right?

[Goblinmonger]

58. Identifying fallacies.

I don't think you're doing it right. Appeal to Authority

[humblebum]

59. Well, I agree that gaining insight from the Constitution or DICTIONARIES

is not the proper application of this type of argumentation. If you haven't picked up on it, it was meant as a tongue and cheek
response. But, what is a fallacy by appealing to authority is the emphasizing of one's scholastic achievements as somehow lending credibility to a claim.

[Goblinmonger]

60. I wasn't appealing to my authority

just letting you know that the definition arguments I have written, coached, and won were far more complex and deep than the misunderstanding you are engaged in.

[humblebum]

61. OH, BOY!!!??? nt

[Goblinmonger]

62. No, I'm sorry, I'm wrong

you are on par with college debaters that have won nationals. May bad.

:sarcasm:

[humblebum]

63. OH, BOY!!!??? nt

[laconicsax]

37. What a marvelous lack of understanding on display. n/t

[cleanhippie]

55. I find it interesting how people seem to enjoy publicly displaying their ignorance for all to see.

[humblebum]

57. I agree. It is very interesting waiting to see what you post next. nt

[LARED]

65. The irony of your is not lost on many nt

[Goblinmonger]

66. The irony of your what? n/t

[cleanhippie]

68. Rebuttal fail.

Expected.

[Meshuga]

54. I have to agree with this letter to the editor written by a Christian reader who states...

As a Christian and a patriotic American citizen, I am offended by the installation of a cross on government property.

Camp Pendleton is government-owned land, and the cross is intended as a memorial to "all military personnel sent to foreign lands." But a cross, the universal symbol of Christianity, is an inappropriate choice to pay tribute because not all military personnel are Christians. What memorial is offered to Jews, Muslims or atheists?

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/15/opinion/la-le-1115-tuesday-20111115

Offensive indeed and I am glad that this atheist group is making noise about the incident at Camp Pendleton. At the very least it exposes the bigotry of the men who erected the cross and who are making claims as to who is represented by the cross.

[madrchsod]

67. the trouble with symbols......

they are so powerful people die for them....