Is putting crosses on public property an issue with church and state?

[mknmehappy]

I just had a discussion here and someone asked if there was an issue with putting crosses with deceased soldiers names on them on public property an issue with the separation of church and state. I told him on private ground no, but maybe on public ground.

[ewagner]

1. I think crosses

are universally accepted as a symbol of a grave marker in this case and not necessarily as a religious symbol. I think the context is the issue, not the cross itself.

[kentuck]

7. Right! We're talking about tombstones ! Not religion.

Now the "peace sign" is another matter... :)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

2. This could be a really great flame war. :) n/t

[merh]

14. Ya think!

:freak: Sometimes it is pretty obvious, isn't it! :hi:

[LoZoccolo]

3. Well, no.

That's like saying you can't wear a cross on your necklace while you're on the sidewalk. The separation of church and state issue is more with things more closely tied to the government because it's about government establishment of religion rather than citizen use of public property. The conservatives don't see this distinction, or choose to ignore it for propagandistic purposes.

I have no doubt you'll be able to find people who argue that it's also a separation of church and state issue on here, though.

[tx_dem41]

20. Ding, ding, ding!

Correct on all accounts (especially the last paragraph ;) )

[johnnie]

4. I don't think so

I have seen many crosses put up for the anti-choice crowds. I have also seen them hung where people's loved ones died in automobile accidents. I have never heard of any of these people being "cursed" for putting them up.
This is only becoming an issue now because the pukes can't stand to see anyone memorializing the casualties of georgie's slaughter.

[Ian David]

5. There are also Stars of David and Muslim Crescents there as well

I don't know if any Wiccan or Atheist or whatever symbols are there, but it's not meant as a "religious display" and shows no "preference" or "endorsement" of any brand of "Belief" over another.

[Norquist Nemesis]

6. Well, if it is you'll not be seeing any more crosses

throughout the highways and bi-ways of the country. Every time someone dies in a car accident (at least around here) there's a cross with the person's name on it marking the spot. A few years ago, a lady whacked out and killed all three of her children and they put big crosses out on the front lawn of the home with the kids' names on it. When the Columbine shooting occurred, a guy from this area constructed crosses for each person killed and went out there to put them up on the grounds of the school (public school).

The difference, IMO, is that it's not an attempt to stuff religion in your face with an icon to worship, but a memorial to an individual who is no longer living in our world.

[FlemingsGhost]

8. Out of all the growing separation of church and state issues ...

Why this one?

[ret5hd]

10. why do you think?

i call shenanigans! (blatant southpark reference)

[Politicub]

9. Let's gaze at our navels and perhaps the answer will come to us

n/t

[Brotherjohn]

11. Not on public ground. Maybe on GOV'T ground, IF the GOV'T does it.

Then, it's state sanctioning of a religious belief.

If private citizens, as a protest, put'em up on just a right of way, then definitely not. Even if private citizens do so in front of the Capitol, still probably not.

[thereismore]

12. Freeptards cannot argue against crosses on public land,

because they want to display religious symbols in courthouses. End of story.

[BluGrl]

13. It can be a problem in some states.

I don't know about TX but I know that some states have pushed to now allow the roadside markers that family and friends put up to mark an accident scene where someone has died. Clearly this isn't an accident scene but from a legal standpoint, it might present problems in some areas.

[shraby]

15. Isn't Arlington a government place?

[Lex]

17. There are many city-owned cemetaries with crosses to mark graves

and the ones put up at Camp Casey are to symbolize the ones in Arlington, which is a national cemetary.

Obviously, a grave-marker to mark a grave is different than a courthouse putting up a cross for no other reason than to promote a particular religion.

Freepers are easily confused.

[JimmyJazz]

21. The markers at Arlington are not in the shape of crosses.

[Lex]

16. Hahaha! I guess the freepers are all worried about separation of church

and state NOW?

NOW?

How interesting.

[Just Me]

18. Go ahead, right-wingers,...piss off MADD, too.

:rofl:

Make them take down their memorials for those who died in drunk driving accidents!!!

:rofl:

Might as well,...you're pissing off everyone else!

[JimmyJazz]

19. No one complained when crosses were erected on public property

after the Columbine school shootings? Do you have a point?



on edit: red "x" for picture

[Cleita]

22. Good point.

There is a roadside shrine erected in the last two weeks on the road nearby where I live and that I take everyday to go to town. It has a cross, flowers and candles and a written memorial to the three teenagers who died when an animal ran in front of the car they were in causing it to crash.

It's on public land. No one is objecting to it. Sometimes you can go too far with this PC separation of church and state when it comes to these things. Yet, no one in the media or public office has raised an eyebrow about the Rev. Moon being crowned as the Messiah in a public building in Washington, D. C., with members of Congress in attendance. Now this is where I draw the line.

[Cocoa]

23. you nailed us!

our whole charade is crumbling down around us! :sarcasm: