WTF is happening to the Corps?! First you cant spit or unrinate towards mecca and now this crap! Can any Marines here tell me whether this is an issue with the Commandant or something else. Its seems that there has been an extreme politically correct push lately.

Were all the fallen brothers Christian? I don’t see any mention of aetheists here.

Shame on those complaining about a MEMORIAL.

Where can I complain about atheists acting stupidly?

God damn it Sandy, now you’re pissing me off. What does it fucking matter ?!?

“The Los Angeles Times documented the former Marines as they carried the 13-foot cross up a steep hill – a Veterans Day journey that took two hours. They were accompanied by the widows and children of the fallen Marines.”

They, as in the widows and children of the fallen Marines ain’t complaining, are they ? No !! It’s no doubt some middle-aged piece of shit atheist, with ass acne, and nothing better to do than bitch and moan about this.

As a former Marine this pisses me off I am so sick and tired of the PC police, the Marine Corps should tell the Atheists to go to hell where they belong, better yet arrange the meeting…

who gives a fat fuck, this is for the Christians who were killed. I suppose by your myopic bullshit, we should close down the base chapel,
which also has crosses within.
eclectic Cassandra more like it.

Glad my son got out before they let the tube, you know whats in, blatantly ,and all the milarky started.  Pathetic!

Being politically incorrect is another term for being HONEST!

Its long past time for the Generals to stand up and tell the politicians ” its time to adhere to the Constitution  or we’ll make you adhere to it and hold military trials for treason ” but they seem to be just as afraid to stand as the rest of us….fearing for the loss of  jobs, pensions and jail time. Shame on all of us for allowing the communists within to take over our country without a fight.  God Bless the USMC.

. I’m an atheist, but don’t take offense to what you said because I understand your anger over things like this. Here’s where the the Atheists went wrong, they need to realize that the cross is a piece of American tradition, same as Christmas, praying..all that stuff. What I do is just go along with it because me and my family have been celebrating Christian holidays since I was born, I just realize it is an American tradition and for that reason I embrace it even though I am an Atheist. But, we don’t belong in hell, there’s a lot of us who treat Christians better than they treat their own people. But, what you said was ignorant. There’s a lot of Atheists who do what I do. Also I’m an active duty soldier, and I think that your opinion definitely does not speak for all Marines or in your case former Marines.

You don’t deserve the life that God gave you. You are an absolute disgrace to humanity, and a complete and total waste of your parents time and effort.

I am now going to go pray that someone drop kicks your worthless ass onto a freeway.

No, Cuttlefish.  The erected Christian cross is no more unconstitutional there than any military cemetery.  The words of the First Amendment are that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion not abridge the free exercise thereof.”  The Christian cross erected by the Marines to honor fallen Marines does not establish a religion as a state religion, but rather is the individual Marines’ free exercise of religion. 

Ever been to a Marine Memorial service at Camp Pendleton?  Are you going to say that when the Marine Band plays “God of Our Fathers,’ when a piper plays “Amazing Grace,” and when tribute in testimonials to fallen Marines is given by Marines in the name of Jesus Christ, that such activity is unconstitutional?  If you do, then you can go to hell. 

Don’t give me that “separation of Church and State” stuff.  That is not the language of the First Amendment.  It is Thomas Jefferson’s metaphorical language written in a letter to a Baptist congregation in Connecticut where the established Church was the Congregational Church (the First Amendment did not apply to states then) and Jefferson was reassuring the Baptists that their religious freedom would be respected.  Jefferson was using the separation language to reference not having an established state Church (he would work to disestablish the Anglican Church in his home state of Virginia), not to exclude religion from the public square.  Indeed, Jefferson ordered the Marine Band to play at the Christian Church services then being held in the Capitol building, and he walked around with a Bible to reassure people he was not that different from George Washington.  What the ACLU and left wingers have done is to take Jefferson’s ”sepration” language and put in it their own secularist, anti-Christian meaning.  It would horrify the Founders.   

It is time for the left wing political correctness to stop.                  

No, Nichophica, what chuck wrote is not ignorant, and there are plenty of Marines who share his view.  Also, there are no “former Marines.”  Once a Marine, always a Marine.  It is just that some Marines are not on active duty. 

I would commend you for your “tolerance,” except that if you are in a unit that has suffered KIAs and you are sick at heart over the losses, the comfort obtained by holding up the Christian cross is not something that anyone should begrudge.    

No, Nichophica, what chuck wrote is not ignorant, and there are plenty of Marines who share his view.  Also, there are no “former Marines.”  Once a Marine, always a Marine.  It is just that some Marines are not on active duty. 

I would commend you for your “tolerance,” except that if you are in a unit that has suffered KIAs and you are sick at heart over the losses, the comfort obtained by holding up the Christian cross is not something that anyone should begrudge.    

Take it up with the supreme court; the separation language is theirs.  Just as you can rely on the constitution to protect you against the imposition of my religious beliefs with the force of law, you must also respect that your own beliefs cannot be given the force of law.  That is the essence of the first amendment, as written and as interpreted by the courts.  In point of fact, the memorial is *not* the same as a military cemetery.  Individual grave markers serve a very different purpose from a more general memorial, and it is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.  These particular fallen soldiers do deserve a memorial, and their friends and family are clearly trying to honor them appropriately, but choosing a religious symbol (rather than, say, a plaque) and placing it on federal land (rather than private or church land) is honoring them by violating the constitution they fought to defend. 

Are there no patriotic believers willing to host the memorial on their own land?  Is there no church willing to host it?  Is it so important to the families that their memorial be explicitly religious (and sectarian, to exclude even more veterans)?  There are so many elements to this that combine to make the memorial unconstitutional; why is it that this display must be seen as more important than the ideals for which these men lost their lives?  I would have hoped that the families would have seen this, and planned their memorial accordingly.  I don’t blame them, though; their thoughts were on their loved ones.  The Camp Pendleton officials, however, should have known better.  If this goes to the courts, the history of decisions suggests that quite a bit of money will be spent to find that the memorial must be moved.

Take it up with the supreme court; the separation language is theirs.  Just as you can rely on the constitution to protect you against the imposition of my religious beliefs with the force of law, you must also respect that your own beliefs cannot be given the force of law.  That is the essence of the first amendment, as written and as interpreted by the courts.  In point of fact, the memorial is *not* the same as a military cemetery.  Individual grave markers serve a very different purpose from a more general memorial, and it is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.  These particular fallen soldiers do deserve a memorial, and their friends and family are clearly trying to honor them appropriately, but choosing a religious symbol (rather than, say, a plaque) and placing it on federal land (rather than private or church land) is honoring them by violating the constitution they fought to defend. 

Are there no patriotic believers willing to host the memorial on their own land?  Is there no church willing to host it?  Is it so important to the families that their memorial be explicitly religious (and sectarian, to exclude even more veterans)?  There are so many elements to this that combine to make the memorial unconstitutional; why is it that this display must be seen as more important than the ideals for which these men lost their lives?  I would have hoped that the families would have seen this, and planned their memorial accordingly.  I don’t blame them, though; their thoughts were on their loved ones.  The Camp Pendleton officials, however, should have known better.  If this goes to the courts, the history of decisions suggests that quite a bit of money will be spent to find that the memorial must be moved.

No, it probably isn’t very Christian of me, and to be quite honest at this point I don’t care.

What I DO care about is the fact that I come from a Marine Corp family, and I take your comment personally.

Why can’t you let these families have the memorial that they want for their loved ones who fought and died for this country ? How on earth does that offend you ?

And how dare you try to take that away from them.

It was ignorant to say that Atheists belong in hell.I have tolerance for religion, and I think religious people should have
tolerance for Atheists, saying that Atheists belong in hell is not
showing respect or tolerance. Someone that says someone else who doesn’t
believe in God should go to hell and they should arrange the meeting sounds just as barbaric as a Muslim spouting their hatred for the non believers. We’re civilized Americans and should conduct ourselves accordingly. And, I agree with you about fallen comrades wanting the comfort of the cross, that was my main point, that religion is an American tradition and Atheists including myself should go along with it without saying a word. I guarantee you that there are plenty of Atheist Marines, so his opinion does not reflect the entire Marine Corps.

eclecticsandra,

I know you have good intentions. You are old and probably lonely. It is good that you can use the Internet to socialize, but you probably shouldn’t do it here. You should find some other forum that you are more compatible with to participate in.

I expected people would want discussion and advancement. Isn’t that what the internet is about?

Show me in the Constitution where is says that anyone, gov’t or otherwise cannot erect a cross. Show me. Don’t quote some agenda driven judge’s opinion. You have to remember that since FDR got to reconstitute the SCUS that its not been the same and neither has America or our Constitution.
This not Congress establishing a religion, its Marines setting up a Memorial. We have some really idiotic court decisions that have given us the current horribly distorted view of the separation of Church and State.
This is what it ACTUALLY STATES.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
So tell me how is the erection of a cross by some Marines the same as Congress making a law establishing a religion? I can’t make the connection.
The Constitution was written so anyone could read and understand it. I see nothing here that prevents the US Marines from putting up any religious symbol they want. Note the “free exercise thereof” part. Judges, in the 20th century have grossly expanded the first 10 words and nearly eliminated the last 6.

I am ashamed that my space on federal land has been taken over. The Christian marines can be honored, but it should be on private ground. I hope the funerals are in alliance with the beliefs of the dead.

You’ve quoted it yourself; it’s the establishment clause.  That you do not see the problem does not mean that there is no problem.   You cannot make the connection; others, including the court, can.

This isn’t about what YOU want, Sandy. “What’s wrong with a Marine symbol”?

What’s wrong with your head ?

Icorps1970
Please note you are attempting to argue against a steadfast individual.

A memorial that their families want is not a violation in any way, shape, or form. That is how they want to memorialize them, and that fact alone is how I “dare to suggest” that it is in fact quite proper.

And against one who actually has read the constitution, bill of rights, and a great many supreme court decisions.  This has F-all to do with my desires, and everything to do with what is the law of the land.

If they wanted to spraypaint their memorial across the face of the White House?  Sorry, no, they have chosen a memorial that, while noble and well-wished, is indeed in violation of the first amendment.  Whether they want it or not is not a factor in its constitutionality.  You are confusing “what feels right” with what is in accordance with the law of the land, the law that they fought and died to protect and defend.

Tolerance and understanding would be good.

Cassie, thank you for remembering that we need to protect the minority.

You go first…say your not ashamed that “Your space has been taken over”…It’s not your space, it’s our space and a lil tolerance and understanding would be a good start…

Excuse me, eclecticsandra, but what in the world makes you think that you can talk about Camp Pendleton in terms of “my space”?  You don’t have space at Camp Pendleton unless you are Marine assigned there.  You cannot get on the base unless you have business there.  So your writing about being ashamed that your space on Camp Pendleton being taken over is evidence of brain rot. 

You are right, but as an anonymous citizen it also belongs to me.

You are right, but as an anonymous citizen it also belongs to me.

No, cuttlefish, what you are writing is not the law.  It is your effort to impose your preference for a secularist society on others contrary to the “free exercise of religion” clause of the Fist Amendment.

Your reference to spray painting the White House is ridiculous and does not illustrate anything.

I read chuck’s statement that the Marine Corps should tell the atheists to go to hell to refer to the atheists who are seeking to have the cross removed from Camp Pendleton, not all atheists.  I thought and think that it is clear that chuck was not referring to you or other atheists who would not object to the cross memorial.  That is why chuck’s statement, as reasonably read, is not ignorant, but a wise piece of advice.

Thank you for posting this.

You are a good man.

They fought and died, having taken an oath to protect and defend the constitution.  How does a memorial that violates that constitution respect their memory?  ~~cuttlecunt

THen why aren’t you complaing about the on base chapels, or the military chaplains????

How did the impose their views?  Seriously?  Are there any other sects represented on government property there? There are two choices–allow everybody, or nobody.  The military has rejected a chaplain’s conversion to wicca (to choose one example) a couple of years ago, and dismissed him rather than accept a wiccan chaplain.  There are marines of many different faiths, and of no faith–should there by scores of memorials on the hill?  Allowing one means allowing all, and the military has already shown that they are unwilling to allow all.  It must, therefore, allow none, or it is violating the establishment clause.

Again, a view of the history of such cases shows that the courts have been consistent.  You should expect a costly battle ending in yet another ruling against the cross.  Certainly, your side may prevail (courts vary, of course), but the smart money is on the constitution.  and the atheists.

We are waiting for eclectic cassandra and cuttlecunt to mount an attack on arlington national cemetary,
all those crosses certainly must offend them.

We are waiting for eclectic cassandra and cuttlecunt to mount an attack on arlington national cemetary,
all those crosses certainly must offend them.

Right.  It would have to be government property, like Camp Pendleton, and a specific religious viewpoint, like a Roman Cross.  ”Free Exercise” is only possible when the government does not take sides.  What part of that is so difficult for you to understand?  No one is trying to get a sign saying “there is no god” erected–I would join you to fight against that.  Not taking a side is simple–even easier than taking a side. No atheist sign, no christian cross, no jewish star, no muslim crescent, no nothing.  The government does not get to choose sides; this is how free exercise is protected.

Right.  It would have to be government property, like Camp Pendleton, and a specific religious viewpoint, like a Roman Cross.  ”Free Exercise” is only possible when the government does not take sides.  What part of that is so difficult for you to understand?  No one is trying to get a sign saying “there is no god” erected–I would join you to fight against that.  Not taking a side is simple–even easier than taking a side. No atheist sign, no christian cross, no jewish star, no muslim crescent, no nothing.  The government does not get to choose sides; this is how free exercise is protected.

Right.  It would have to be government property, like Camp Pendleton, and a specific religious viewpoint, like a Roman Cross.  ”Free Exercise” is only possible when the government does not take sides.  What part of that is so difficult for you to understand?  No one is trying to get a sign saying “there is no god” erected–I would join you to fight against that.  Not taking a side is simple–even easier than taking a side. No atheist sign, no christian cross, no jewish star, no muslim crescent, no nothing.  The government does not get to choose sides; this is how free exercise is protected.

The constitution prevents the government from establishing a state run religion.
Erecting a cross is a statement of sentiment, not establishing a religion.
If your myopic bullshit was true,they wouldn’t allow military chapels to exist.

I would assume there are chapels for all other represented faiths, so there would be no need to remove the Christian chapel. Unfortunately the military chaplins don’t seem to be as open as we would expect. I have said that individual religious symbols on graves should remain.

I would assume there are chapels for all other represented faiths, so there would be no need to remove the Christian chapel. Unfortunately the military chaplins don’t seem to be as open as we would expect. I have said that individual religious symbols on graves should remain.

They need not be excluded whatsoever.  There are many ways to memorialize a loss.  On government property, some ways are appropriate and others are not. On private property or church property, there are other options.  The government cannot recognize one faith over another or over no faith; that means nothing when it comes to recognizing a comrade on your own property, or indeed anywhere but on government property.

you will note (and support, I hope) that atheist soldiers are pushing for atheist chaplains as well.  The chaplaincy supports soldiers in a way that other institutions do not (e.g, counselors); it should, therefore, be open to all.  There are chaplains of many faiths, and their duty is (although it has not always been performed this way) to support any and all military men and women.

Please note that arlington’s headstones are not crosses (it would help your argument if you actually knew these things).  Christian soldiers may have crosses on their headstones, but there are other inscriptions for other faiths as well, including atheists. These are tributes to individuals, and as such are quite different from a memorial to “all”, where “all” may not be represented by a cross.

Arlington is an example of doing it right.  Why would I attack it?

Chapels and chaplains are tasked with serving the needs of all servicemen and women.  When they do not–when they preach one faith over another–they can be, and have been, subject to discipline.

And please google “arlington national cemetery” and note that the headstones are not crosses.  The headstones of christians may have crosses engraved on them, but there are also any number of other symbols for other faith communities, including atheists.

An atheist chaplain ? How does that even make sense ? Unless you’re saying that atheists, including yourself are a faith-based group…or lack there of ? Or are you going for the Humanist “faith” angle ?

Even when the law is on his side?  My goodness, you reek of privilege.

Please note, that is not Arlington National Cemetery.  Arlington has headstones that are not crosses (and may have engraved crosses, jewish stars, muslim crescents, and even the American Atheist symbol).  Your picture is from France.

There is a world of difference between the tributes to an individual and a monument directed toward all.  Would you have [the families of] atheist soldiers and marines subjected to a religious sermon by default?  That is what Texas has tried to do–allow religious services even when not wanted.  ”Not taking a side” is not at all the same thing as “denying a christian view” or “advocating for atheism” at the level of what the state has as a default for all.  

I would (and so would, for example, the ACLU) strongly support an individual serviceman’s family’s request for a religious service, if that is what they want.  But just as I should not be able to impose my own ceremony on their funeral, nor should they be able to set a standard for all servicemen that reflects their own religious beliefs.

Your memorial service example is not at all the same as a generalized tribute, and I suspect you know it.

Oh, I see, it was only a temporary erection of the cross?  Then why the concern on your part–no view was imposed, so none will be removed when the cross is gone.  I suspect by now you see that you were wrong.

Marines do have many different faiths, and not just christian denominations.  You insult good men and women to state otherwise, and you should be ashamed of yourself. 

You may well be a lawyer who has lectured on it.  Nearly every case has lawyers on the losing side; your appeal to authority is wasted here; all your statement adds is that you should know better.

You’re welcome. And thank you.

Wouldn’t you agree that the chaplains are “disproportionately members of evangelistic Christian denominations” because that is what the Marine Corp is comprised of ?

Obviously I am not saying that there are no atheist Marines, but I think it’s disingenuous at best to assume that there is a high percentage of atheist Marines, or service members in general.

Still waiting on some tolerance..to complain and argue when there are much worse problems with this country then crying over a symbolic tribute is pretty pitiful but of course the libs tend to cry about anything or anytime they don’t advance their loosing hateful ideology through so called discussion, tolerance and understanding….

“There are many ways to memorialize a loss” See your kind of warped thinking puts you in place as to how others ought to memorialize through suggestion…well it’s not your place or even your business to even suggest that there’s other ways to memorialize..for your type of thinking puts you in some form of superiority over others when your not…you liberals are something else I’ll tell ya…you just don’t get it do you,,,always hiding, scheming, plotting about this and that, arguing, projecting, hiding behind this or that, alll just to get your lazy assed little giveme giveme entitlement mentality way …pffft

And what of the huge menorah erected in front of the White House every year at Hanukkah. Surely that is even more of a “violation” of the seperation between state and religion.  

I assume you would take offense equally to that i.e it is not just Christianity that you see as the one religion to take offense to.

Always ask yourself what would the fellas who wrote the Constitution think say or do on these matters. 

Take General Washington. I am sure the Old Gentleman Father of the Nation would not object to crosses at the camp at Valley Forge

You don’t know Marines, so don’t say what they are and aren’t. 

You are just a self-righteous secularist leftist who can’t stand beingh shown to be wrong and who  is seeking to eliminate religious expression from the public spaces.

Only because you don’t know Marines would you post about atheist chaplains.

Victor Davis Hanson once said that there are two things that have generally enabled American soldiers to fight: one, a 19th century sense of honor; and two, a belief in a transcendent God.  We are talking about the ones who do the fighting, not REMFs.   

So what would an atheist chaplain counsel you about possibly becaming a KIA in your battalion?  You are gone, nothing is left, you’re screwed?  Certainly no talk of Marines guarding the streets of heaven.   

Well said, Lou.

No, it does not belong to you.  Camp Pendleton belongs to the Marine Corps and the Marines who train and serve there.  It is their needs that count, not yours, electicsandra.  You are simply rationalizing imposing your ignorant ways on the honorable.

What about the crosses at the normady gravesites ,numbnuts????

That would make atheism a religion, another no no in you book I assume.

I thought FDR lost that battle.

Wow, you know me so well. You only get… hmmm… everything wrong.  Look. If someone wishes to honor a loved one in a manner which violates the constitution, that is everybody’s business.  As for questions of superiority, the one group which has acted as if it is a privileged class here is the one that has put its religious symbol on government land.  Did they ask first?  No, why should they when they are the superior class?  You talk about hiding, scheming, and projecting–you’ve described your playbook.

You miss the point (deliberately, is my guess).  I object to the placement of a specifically religious memorial on federal land, not to the placement of a family’s memorial to their loved ones.  A different location makes all the difference in the world; a different monument makes all the difference in the world.  

It is telling that you have to distort my position in order to argue against it. 

Thank you for putting words in my mouth; it must be much easier to argue against me when you can speak for me at the same time.

“The sermon was based on what he claimed was a well-known fact, that there were no Atheists in foxholes. I asked Jack what he thought of the sermon afterwards, and he said, “There’s a chaplain who never visited the front.” -Kurt Vonnegut Hocus Pocus

Seriously, Phil, are you claiming that all marines are christians?  That is what you are reacting to here, and I can’t believe you are going out on that limb.  It is a simple fact, there are marine corps chaplains who are jewish, muslim, and buddhist, in addition to the most common christian chaplains.  

You are letting your disagreement with me cloud what you are saying.  Just because I am saying it, doesn’t mean you have to disagree with it.  You’ll end up saying a lot of nonsense, like you have done here.

The Arlington grave markers are a standard white tombstone with a curved top.  There are currently 41 different standardized faith emblems currently in use, reflecting the diversity within the armed forces.  It should surprise no one that christian crosses make up the majority, reflecting the population of the country as a whole.

Feel free to read it.  While you are there, I suggest three or four other blogs on that site.  ”Rock Beyond Belief” is the personal blog of the Military Director for American Atheists.  ”Assassin Actual” is the blog of a Cavalry Officer currently in Iraq, and a member of the Military Atheists and Secular Humanists. “This week in christian nationalism” is written by the Senior Research Director for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. And Ed Brayton’s “Dispatches from the Culture Wars” often examines these legal issues.

Educate yourself on the issue.  See it from the perspective of those who don’t share your privileged world view.  

Again, thank you for projecting.  It’s easy to dismiss your opponent’s thoughts when you assign them in the first place.  In point of fact, I *just finished* saying how Arlington does it right, when you give my alleged reason for attacking it.  

The overwhelming number of Marines are Christians.  There are very, very few Muslim and Buddhist Marines.  The Jewish Marines are ones who don’t object to seeing Christian crosses.  The people who object are civilian secularists sucha s you trying to impose your religion or non-religion on others.

Hanson writing from a position of “Christian privilege”?  And I am writing from “ignorance”?  I think that you just showed (again) your self-righteous ignorance.

Spouting Vonnegut’s wise ass, but unwise comment does not get you off the hook of answering my challenge as to what an atheist chaplain says to you about possibly bcoming a KIA in your battalion.  I was pointed in how I put it: “You are gone, nothing is left, you’re screwed. Certainly no talk about Marines guarding the streets of heaven.”  But what does the atheist chaplain say?????   

Your perspective is that of a militant atheist attempting to make public spaces conform to your atheism and to misuse the First Amendment to further that goal.

Educate yourself on the issue.  See it from the perspective of those who don’t share your privileged world view. ~~cuttlecunt

Go fuck  yourself on the issue.  See it from the perspective of those who don’t share your  degenerate world view.
You and your ilk would use the constitution to cram your religion (atheism) down our throats.

As always, thank you for stating my case for me; it saves me the trouble, and it’s much easier for you to fight against.  Removal of one view is not the same as promoting a different view.  It would be every bit as unconstitutional for me to attempt to impose atheism alone on the public sphere.  But so long as christianity gets to be there, so does every other view.

It’s like trying to nail Jello to a wall. – All atheists are the same, lurking and hiding behind the Constitution, and yet never having the courage to admit their true goal.

- I wonder if Cuttlefish supports the lunatics who protest at military funerals.

One does not need to be a civilian secularist in order to object to violations.  96% of the more than 25,000 active duty members of the armed forces who have come to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation for help (complaints about the imposition of a particular religious viewpoint through official military channels) are themselves christians.  http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/about/  Active duty christians can and do see the need for separation of church and state. You cannot assume that all christians will agree that the cross is appropriately located.

Besides, as a lawyer, you know better than anyone that civil rights protect against the tyranny of the majority.  Arguments about overwhelming numbers are not how rights are determined.

Well actually it is not clear as you referred to it as to what Atheists he was talking about. I know I may seem like I’m splitting hairs, but he said “the Atheists.” That is not at all clear as to what Atheists he is talking about, if you would like to interpret that as him referring to only some Atheists then be my guest. But, I take it as it was written as the  Atheists. Also, if you think that someone telling someone else to go to hell as a “wise” piece of advice then I can gather that you’re not so “wise” yourself. He was obviously pissed about the situation and no level headed thinking comes out of emotional arguing.

Well actually it is not clear as you referred to it as to what Atheists he was talking about. I know I may seem like I’m splitting hairs, but he said “the Atheists.” That is not at all clear as to what Atheists he is talking about, if you would like to interpret that as him referring to only some Atheists then be my guest. But, I take it as it was written as the  Atheists. Also, if you think that someone telling someone else to go to hell as a “wise” piece of advice then I can gather that you’re not so “wise” yourself. He was obviously pissed about the situation and no level headed thinking comes out of emotional arguing.

Well actually it is not clear as you referred to it as to what Atheists he was talking about. I know I may seem like I’m splitting hairs, but he said “the Atheists.” That is not at all clear as to what Atheists he is talking about, if you would like to interpret that as him referring to only some Atheists then be my guest. But, I take it as it was written as the  Atheists. Also, if you think that someone telling someone else to go to hell as a “wise” piece of advice then I can gather that you’re not so “wise” yourself. He was obviously pissed about the situation and no level headed thinking comes out of emotional arguing.

In additon to being an militant atheist, you are a propagandist with false statistics.

Well I replied to your comment and someone obviously deleted it, so I’ll try again. It’s really unclear as to who Chuck was referring to in his original statement, if you choose to interpret it as him referring to only a group of Atheists then, ok that’s your opinion. But, I take it as it was written because it was not specific. Now if he were to get on here and specify to your point, then I would have no argument other than what I am about to say. If you think that telling someone to go to hell is a “wise” piece of advice, the I can gather that you are not so wise yourself. He obviously wrote his statement when he was pissed, and no level headed thinking or argument comes from an emotional regurgitation of angry words.

From what I’ve read he would deplore that. That is intrusive behavior.

Attila, thank you for the suggestion. It is nicely written and indicates a gentle “soul.”

Just, it’s too bad you let your hate get in the way of understanding. I’m sure that nothing I say will change your mind so just stop reading my comments. That may improve your digestion.

FACT!  And undisputed.

If you have an ounce of intellectual honesty, you will look up Jefferson’s letter to a Baptist Congregation. You can twist Jefferson’s intent of his letter all you want, there is no amount of revisionist history you leftist can spin. This is fact, it part of our history, this is our heritage as American’s. Phil is 100% correct in his assertion. Sorry pal.

Shhhhh!! Don’t give these “Intellectual pygmy’s any ideas. With athiest types, fllash a Cross at them, and they hyperventilate into an emotional reaction instead of thinking clearly with the brain that “GOD” gave them. Cuttlefish, I said GOD, I’m going to put up a cross on PUBLIC LAND after I’m done typing this.

LOLOL!! Atheist chaplains…lolol..so now your politically correct term is Atheist Chaplains instead of  shrinks to help you libs through not getting your way, that’s a novel approach vs violence..I can  but chaplains??? WTF are you talking about, the military has all kinds of help for your mental disorders..just ask your buddy mooslum shrink that went postal..

Cuttlefish,

You nailed it!

Separation
of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of
separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders
did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers
and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of
government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly,
they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather,
they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the
power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that
government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government
power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing
substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding
any religious test for public office.  Given
the norms of the day, the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the
Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious
belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice.  They later buttressed this separation of
government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the
government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from
freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much
more than just the First Amendment.

It is important to
distinguish between the “public square” and “government”
and between “individual” and “government” speech about
religion.  The constitutional principle
of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public
square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise”
clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her
religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only
the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of
religion.  As government can only act
through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are
performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing
students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct
themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government.
When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their
religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended
even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First
Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be
eviscerated.  While figuring out whether
someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may
sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.

Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on
the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts
rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx

AMEN!!!

AMEN!!!

While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.

Wake Forest’s Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere–elaborates on how government monuments and such are handled under the law. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx

Separation of church and state is a
bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of
powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not
simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and
checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government
among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did
not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they
actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power
of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to
god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over
matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive
about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious
test for public office.  Given the norms
of the day, the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution
suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was
quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice.  They later buttressed this separation of
government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the
government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from
freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much
more than just the First Amendment.

That the phrase
“separation of church and state” does not appear in the text of the
Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who may have once
labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were
mistaken, reckon they’ve discovered a smoking gun solving a Constitutional
mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor
commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the
absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks
and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted
Constitutional principles.

To the extent that
some nonetheless would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’
intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied
it.  Some
try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decisions on this subject as simply a
misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the
only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played
but a small part in the Court’s decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson,
James Madison influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in
drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood
them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.”
Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded
against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a
state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits
die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and
religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress”
and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive
recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether
these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure
principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on
both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States
forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

get over yourself. There are no atheist’s in fighting holes. Pick up a weapon and serve in combat, we will see you change your tune. America is a Christian Nation. You can’t change that!

get over yourself. There are no atheist’s in fighting holes. Pick up a weapon and serve in combat, we will see you change your tune. America is a Christian Nation. You can’t change that!

I JUST PUT A CROSS ON PUBLIC LAND!

I serve on active duty, a large number of Marines classify themselves as judeo christian.

Cant’s speak for HQMC, Like the PC Army, the MC is now trending that way do to the muuuuuuuuuuuslims that serve in the Pentagon and scumbag PC JAG’S

LOL! What are the reports you cite? I serve on ACTIVE DUTY. I have not heard of ONE single Marine on active duty that has reported ONE REPORT OF HARASSMENT with intent to circumvent soliders with different beliefs. Chaplins serve at the request of the Commanding Officer of a Unit. The Navy provides Chaplins service for the Marine Corps, there are Chaplin service for every major Religious preference. Know what you are speaking about. Service members can enlist the service of any chaplin they desire. Your reports are wrong .The Navy has recently added Wicken Chaplins. Atheiist’s are not classified by the Penagon as a Chaplin service because it does not have a belief system in a higher power. Take the oath of enlistment, pick up am weapon and defend your Country and seek a chaplin service. then you will know what i’m talking about. You can’t, because you don’t serve

Why the socialist/Lib Grand Poo Baa prayed in the White House. Where is the seperation of church and state you atheist’s?
http://youtu.be/8-weBUzQleo

I am so happy to hear you believe in the rule of law.  That is all I am asking here.  Ours is a country where we are all equal in
the eyes of the law; there is no religious caste system like in some places,
where your rights depend on what beliefs you profess.  That would be distinctly un-American, I hope
you agree.

I am a bit concerned, of course, because parts of the rest
of your comment seems to disagree with your claim that you believe in the rule
of law.  For instance, your rule #1 is
simply wrong as a matter of historical fact. 
Article VI of the constitution you are sworn to protect and defend
defines the supreme Law of the Land as the Constitution, the laws of the United
States and all treaties. The Treaty of Tripolis (as a Marine, I am sure you
fondly recall Tripolis, or at least its shores) contains the following: “As the
Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the
Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the
laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered
into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared
by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever
produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”  Signed by President John Adams in 1797, and
part of the supreme law of the land, we have a statement explicitly denying
your claimed “rule number 1”.  As a
believer in the rule of law, you might want to know.

As for your rule #2, 3, and 4 I have not denied them,
because I defend the right of any individual to the legal expressions of their
faith.  There are chaplains for other
faiths as well, as you must be aware, and no caste system relegating any of
them to second-class status because of their beliefs.  The chaplaincy serve a purpose; you’ll note
that I have not argued that they should be abolished, but rather that this
service be offered to all, including the thousands of non-believing servicemen
and women who currently cannot officially even meet with one another as like-minded
individuals.   Non-believing servicemen
and women are being treated differently—as someone who believes in the rule of
law, this should bother you.

Rule #5 amuses me, of course, because it refers to rule #1,
which is factually false.

Rule #6 is your belief and as such I would never question
your right to hold it.  I would fight
against any attempt by the government to force you to deny that belief.  Note, though, there is a world of difference
between “not expressing” a belief, and “denying” that belief. The establishment
clause (again, you do believe in the rule of law, yes?) prohibits the
government from forcing you to act in accordance with my beliefs, and from
forcing anyone to act in accordance with yours. 
If, while your religious views are in the majority, you cede to the
government the power to force people to act in accordance with your view, you
have given them the power to force you to act otherwise if the majority view
changes.

Rule #7—I actually agree with.  If your faith is strong, why do you need the
crosses?  I would not want to change your
heart; why do you think I would? 
Atheists have no missionaries, no duty to proselytize—it is the
faith-based communities who have those. 
I only want equal protection under the law—I want respect for the rule
of law, just as you say you do.

(as an aside… where did you come up with these “rules”?  Do you claim to speak for all Marines?  When these “rules” are in conflict with the
Supreme Law of the Land, do you continue to defend them?  If you do, are you in violation of your
oath?)

I was in the process of replying to this, when Comcast killed my internet while repairing my neighbors’.   What I was saying….

Please look at the language you are using.  ”Hiding behind the Constitution”, “us[ing] the constitution to cram…”  Yes, I am using the Constitution.  The document that servicemen and women are sworn to protect and defend.  Your language implies that you know my arguments are based in the law, which they are.  How this is a bad thing is beyond me.  Ours is a nation where the rule of law trumps the tyranny of the majority.  I will gladly admit my true goal–to have the law apply to us all equally.  
“The lunatics who protest at military funerals” are the Westboro Baptist Church. They are attempting to impose their religious beliefs on your memorials.  They are hateful and loathesome, but they are christians expressing their heartfelt beliefs, just as the families who hauled the Pendleton Cross up the mountain did. I should ask if *you* support them.

For the record, Just a Girl, I truly hate the Westboro Baptist Church.  The courts have ruled that they do have the right to protest.  Fortunately, that same right applies to those of us who go out and protest against them, coming between them and their targets.  I find it interesting that you (I hope) deplore their imposition of their religion on someone else’s funeral.  It isn’t nice to have that done to you, is it?

Please do not lie about the good atheists who have served.  Of course there are, and have been for generations, atheists in foxholes. Some of them are friends of mine.  Also, America is not a christian nation, nor an atheist nation, but is a secular nation; this is what has protected religious believers from one another.  Our government does not and should not have the power to force you to my beliefs; nor, though, does it enforce yours.  You have sworn an oath to protect and defend the constitution.  You might want to pay attention to that.

Just a question, Just a girl–when you say “the epic amounts of bullshit…” and “hiding behind the constitution”, are you saying that you disagree with the rule of law?  I am indeed following the constitution (you say “hiding behind”, I say “following”)–how is this “epic bullshit”?  

One quick hypothetical question: if your religion disagreed with the constitution, which would you follow?

Just a question, Just a girl–when you say “the epic amounts of bullshit…” and “hiding behind the constitution”, are you saying that you disagree with the rule of law?  I am indeed following the constitution (you say “hiding behind”, I say “following”)–how is this “epic bullshit”?  

One quick hypothetical question: if your religion disagreed with the constitution, which would you follow?

Thanks. 

Sorry this is so delayed–I tried to reply earlier, but my internet died.

Just a girl–I wish what you said were true.  I have seen far too much bigotry to believe it, though.  The world you describe is much nicer than the one that actually exists.  There are many different christian crosses among the accepted military headstone emblems–some two dozen, roughly.  Having a serviceman or woman represented by the wrong christian cross is an offense, let alone some symbol that is not even christian.

Again, I truly wish that what you say were true.  If you honestly think it is, you are in for a rude awakening.

You amuse me, Lou.  Which do you think I am, an atheist, or a muslim?  Do you know your religious history?  The Abrahamic god is shared by jews, christians, and muslims, although there are sects among and within each tradition that will fight with one another. The “mooslum shrink that went postal” is far more closely aligned with your own beliefs than with mine.  You might want to understand something before you comment on it.

Are you suggesting that marines are not bound by law?  If, as Phil suggests, Camp Pendleton is “a special place”, is it beyond the reach of the constitution?  Odd, given their oath…

“Epic amounts of bullshit”….I think that you’re “hiding behind the Constitution” because you can not- or will not admit to your ultimate goal. You just hate religion in all forms and want it abolished, and you’ll try to rationalize that goal by falsely altruistic intentions. – It just doesn’t wash.

I don’t usually answer hypothetical questions. Whatever answer that might be given can not be seen as accurate or even honest. Sorry….another one of your thinly veiled attempts to bait me has failed. Though I do appreciate the effort I suppose. Someone a lot stupider might have fallen for it.

You do that.  We’ll note the respect you give to the oath you have sworn.

How do you feel about the oath you took to protect and defend the constitution?  You chose your religion over your country.  I’m glad others did not.

I did not “suggest” anything, Cuttlefish. I said that you do not know Marines. – How many do you know ? An honest answer please…no inflated numbers to bolster your “argument”. I know many….and they are ALL Christians.

I did not “suggest” anything, Cuttlefish. I said that you do not know Marines. – How many do you know ? An honest answer please…no inflated numbers to bolster your “argument”. I know many….and they are ALL Christians.

You’re right Cuttlefish….I’m just to naive to understand how the world works, correct ?

I used to be an atheist Cuttlefish….I know my kind, so to speak.

That is why.

I doubt it.  You seem pretty damned smart, but set on proving me wrong.  Do you really, honestly believe that all the various religions are not offended by being represented by other?  That Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland are cool with both being christian?   That Hutus and Tutsis are mostly just buddies?  That the christian KKK in the southern US has no problem with jews?  If so, carry on.  I trust that you are an honest person, and will admit that your statement went too far.

Unless a christian chaplain says “hey, you’re going to heaven, so it doesn’t matter if you die”, your argument is pointless.  I would not presume to tell a christian “this is what your beliefs are”; I would not tolerate your strawman of an atheist’s beliefs.   You do a good job, though, of illustrating the problem.  Your inability to understand the atheist perspective is clear and persuasive; a christian chaplain clearly cannot counsel an atheist Marine appropriately.

“for every major religious preference”.  You seem to know your stuff–what percentage of servicemen and women are non-believers?  How do those percentages stack up against the other “different beliefs”?  By those percentages, should there be representation for non-believing troops?

You might enjoy– http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467004575463833265055248.html

I thought I posted this already, but…  

I cited my source.  Will you cite yours? 

USMC3112 is respecting the oath to uphold the Constitution.  You are simply trying to twist and distort the Constitution to enforce official atheism.  Disgusting.

You are using a lot of words mistakenly to justify re-writing the text of the First Amendment to make it say something different from the text that became part of the Constitution through the Constitution’s mandated process involving passage by state legislatures and Congress.  That is legal error on your part which is not aided by reference to Madison’s writings 30 years after the adoption of the First Amendment.  To be sure, late in his life, Madison questioned whether military chaplains and Thanksgiving to God were proper.  But he lost that constitutional and political argument.  Per George Washington, we had military chaplains from the start; the First Congress that passed the First Amendment also voted to have military chaplains; we continue to have military chaplains to this day. Washington issued two Thanksgiving Proclamations while President, and Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclamations in the Civil War decided for good the “issue” of Thanksgiving. 

You go way too far in embracing the terminology “separation of Church and State.”  To the extent that those metaphoriocal words mean anything, it is just what is in the text of the First Amendment: no establishment of a state religion and free expression of religion.  The Supreme Court did misread Jefferson’s Danbury letter.  Jefferson’s letter used the phrase “separation of Church and State” in the limited sense of anti-establishment/free exercise of religion.  That is why Jefferson had no problem with sending the Marine Band to play at the Christian services held then in the Capitol building.

The error that you make and others make is that you run with the metaphorical words “separation of Church and State” to mean something more than what the text of the First Amendment says and at odds with the different views of George Washington, the First Congress and others involved in the enactment of the First Amendment.  It is an elitist effort to re-write the First Amendement to secularist ideology.         

You don’t reason carefully.  When you write that the intended scope of the First Amendment was not limited to preclusion of a national religion, you cite the rejection of alternative language by Congress and then, without quoting the adopted language by Congress, call it “broadly phrased.”  Baloney.  The language is “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religiion nor abridge the free exercise thereof. . . .”  The same Congress that adopted this language also voted to have and fund military chaplains.

The courts have not in recent years been wise concerning the First Amendment.  First Amendment constuitional doctrine on the religion clause is a mess.  Wake Forest’s Q&A “primer” only reflects a state of case law that too often is not justified by the text and history of the First Amendment.        

You still don’t answer my challenge to you as to what an “atheist chaplain” would say about possibly becoming a KIA despite my repeated efforts to get you to say what an “atheist chaplain” would say.  You keep avoiding my challenge.  You do so because there is nothing an atheist can say.  So don’t complain about my not understanding.  I do understand: you have no answers.

I can be brief in a way you obviously can’t be. 

It is not a matter of my liking or not liking the metaphorical language “separation of Church and State.”  For the adjuducation of specific cases, you use the constitutional text, not replacement language that you like or think expresses some larger principle. The text is what has gone through the democratic process of adoption under the Constitution.  Using replacement language is an illegitimate usurpation of the People’s decision. 

The problem that we have today is that Jefferson’s 1801 words “separation of Church and State” have been misused in constututional litigation.  Jefferson’s words were written in a letter to a group of Danbury, Connecticut Baptists intended to communicate the First Amendment’s clause for not having an established Church, as there was in Connecticut at the time of Jefferson’s 1801 letter to the Danbury Baptists. But what has happened since 1947 (almost 150 years later) is that Jefferson’s metaphorical language has been effectively used as replacement language for the actual text of the First Amendment and that the replacement language of separation of Church and State has been given a different and much more expansive secularist meaning than what the text of the First Amendment provides.  That is why I point out that Jefferson sent the Marine Band to play at the Church services then held at the Capitol building; he did not intend that his words ban religion from public spaces.  What is said today “separation of Church and State” means is not what the First Amendment’s text supports.       

Gee, can I just correct him when he’s factually wrong?  Cos that’s all I did.

It’s NOT unconstitutional to put up a cross or pray in public schools or anywhere else in public! That is a lie. For the government to show favor to ANY religion, icl. atheism (their god is themselves), and esp. forcing that as a national religion (that is what they are doing when they say a memorial cross HAS to come down) is unconstitutional.

Cuttlefish,

You just don’t seem to get it. It’s down right infuriating to see a civilian chastising a Marine. And yes, whether intentional or not, it just makes you look like an asshole.

You don’t get it, do you? The Marines who erected that cross have EVERY right to do so. Ironically, when the gov. tells them to take it down they are establishing the religion of humanism/atheism.

You are wrong. The founders put up the Ten Commandments, for instance, in many of our historical buildings. The “separation of church and state” is NOT the bedrock in that the church is not allowed to participate in gov. It was in a letter from one of the founders and is NO WHERE in the document itself, and the idea was to keep gov. OUT of the church and to tie the gov. hands so the church participate in gov.

The law is not on your side. The twist of it is, but not the law itself.

Cuttlefish,

Come on man, you’re not a dumb ass, so why would you ask such a ridiculous question ? Suggesting that the families of the fallen Marines might want WBC to represent them, regardless of whether or not it’s hypothetical is like asking me if Hitler was a little antisemitic.

Unless you consider all Marines and their families masochists, who want some fringe group condemning them to hell for no reason to represent them. – The idiocy of your question is astounding.

Cuttlefish,

Come on man, you’re not a dumb ass, so why would you ask such a ridiculous question ? Suggesting that the families of the fallen Marines might want WBC to represent them, regardless of whether or not it’s hypothetical is like asking me if Hitler was a little antisemitic.

Unless you consider all Marines and their families masochists, who want some fringe group condemning them to hell for no reason to represent them. – The idiocy of your question is astounding.

What exactly do you think I’m suggesting here ? And why must you constantly twist and distort the comments of others who disagree with you ?

Did I ever make the suggestion that a Jew should have a cross representing them ? – Look over all my previous comments, because I did not. But for God’s sake man ( GASP…I said GOD ) do you honestly believe that one of the fallen Marines was a Jew or a Muslim and somehow their families were totally oblivious to this fact ?

The Pendleton cross is not being used to represent EVERYONE. What part of that don’t you get ?

Hmm… found something here: http://www.prb.org/Source/ACF1396.pdf?page=27  In a 2004 study on America’s Military Population, it turns out that there is a slightly higher percentage of atheist/no religious preference in the military than in the civilian population.  21% of the military claim no religion (Table 5, page 25 of the pdf), considerably more than the numbers of jewish, muslim, and buddhist soldiers combined–and of course, there are chaplains for those groups.

Hmm… found something here: http://www.prb.org/Source/ACF1396.pdf?page=27  In a 2004 study on America’s Military Population, it turns out that there is a slightly higher percentage of atheist/no religious preference in the military than in the civilian population.  21% of the military claim no religion (Table 5, page 25 of the pdf), considerably more than the numbers of jewish, muslim, and buddhist soldiers combined–and of course, there are chaplains for those groups.

It is indeed infuriating to have one point out when you are mistaken.  But he’s a Marine, and has been through far worse than I could ever dish out.  And I really don’t care if you think I look like an asshole “hiding behind the constitution”; I think the constitution is worth defending, even if I look bad in the process.

removing an illegal item is *not* the same as putting up its opposite.

removing an illegal item is *not* the same as putting up its opposite.

Yes, it was a ridiculous question, and you *should* be outraged by it.  Now, can you not see that having the *wrong* religion pretend to speak for you is insulting?  

In Texas, state legislators wanted to force Christian prayer at all military funerals–even when it is against the families’ wishes.  Even when it is for atheist soldiers.  I would not force the WBC on you; would you force your christianity on families that don’t want it?

This Texas legislation is from this year, so it is no hypothetical question.  I would hope that you would agree with me that the government has no business forcing religion onto these families.

That the phrase
“separation of church and state” does not appear in the text of the
Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who may have once
labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were
mistaken, reckon they’ve discovered a smoking gun solving a Constitutional
mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor
commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the
absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks
and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted
Constitutional principles.

To the extent that some nonetheless would like
confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate government
and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Some try to pass off the
Supreme Court’s decisions on this subject as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s
letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s
decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the
Court’s decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the
Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and
the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] .
. . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached
Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just
laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful
that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens
and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the
appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and
navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending
thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions
were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of
religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must
be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything
like an establishment of a national religion.”

Keeping the government neutral in matters of religion by constraining it from promoting one or another religion hardly amounts to promoting humanism or atheism.

The cross itself is not a problem  Its placement on public land, giving the appearance of a favored religion, is.  If other memorials, from every requested faith community, were added, it would be different.  If it were a memorial that did not represent one faith tradition, that would be different.  But the military has shown a history of favoritism (for instance, denying a chaplain’s request to switch from being a christian chaplain to being a wiccan chaplain), and that favoritism is prohibited on government land.

If the cross were placed on church property, or on the property of a landowner (with their permission, of course), it would be a beautiful memorial to the fallen Marines.  And it would not represent anyone but them.  On public land, though, it speaks for all of us.

I do have focus, whereas you do not; but otherwise, you have misstated the matter and you have a misconception about constitutional adjudication.

I confined myself to the question of Church and State because that is what is being discussed here.  You referred to a list of other aspects of the Constitution that to discuss all adequately would require a lengthy essay beyond the province of a comments section to an article.  Other “aspects” of the Constitution, such as separation of powers and checks and balances, do not decide First Amendment religion cases.  

Further, general reference to “aspects” of the Constitution do not decide constitutional cases.  You work out of the text because it is the text that controls.  There can be any number of textual treatments of a subject that reflect the same general principle of constitutional structure and with different results in specific cases depending upon what text is being applied.

What you are resisting is a disciplined approach to constitutional interpretation that is necessary for the maintenance of democratic self-governance under a written Constitution.  You want instead to refer to general “aspects” and concepts as if they can decide specific cases. It does not work that way.

I focus on the actual text of the First Amendment’s religion clause because that is what was enacted by the Constitution’s amendment process involving Congress and the state legislatures.  Jefferson’s language was not so adopted, and it cannot properly replace the text of the First Amendment in deciding specific cases. Unfortunately, it too often has in the last 63 years; and the result is an interpretation of the First Amendment that the text and history of the First Amendment do not justify.  A different meaning of “separation of Church and State” has been poured into those words than what Jefferson meant, and that different current meaning has influenced the development of what is a mess in current First Amendment doctrine.

That mess is the result of the words being “separation of Church and State” being metaphorical, whereas for principled decision making in specific cases, you need more determinate, specific language.             

Would I force my wobbly Christianity on families that don’t want it ?

Of course not.

A) atheists do complain about other religions than christianity; in the US, where most attempts at advancing religion into the public square are christian, it is no surprise that most complaints are against christians.  B) the mosque case was private property, not public land. I would certainly support the Pendleton Cross being erected on private property; that would be a beautiful and appropriate memorial.

Nice rhetorical twist.  I’m not fighting the cross, I am defending the constitution.  It just happens to be the cross that is in violation this time.  All the cross is to me is an historical symbol of a number of groups I don’t belong to.  If it is on public land, it is there for all of us, and it no more represents all of us than the WBC people represent all christians.  You would be rightfully offended to have someone claim the WBC speaks for you; can’t you see that the same applies when your own beliefs are seen as representing others?  

Thank you.  You can, then, see that the Texas state legislators are violating the establishment claus, and see why that is offensive.  I hope you can see (if not agree with) the argument that the Pendleton Cross also, by virtue of being on public land, seemingly with the approval of the Marine Corps, is forcing one religious view.  I attached a study, in a previous post, that shows 21% of armed forces members identify themselves as atheist/no religion; that’s a lot of people who would not identify with that cross on their land.  (certainly, not all atheists would have a problem with it; conversely, some christians would.  Some of the court cases complaining about crosses on public land have been brought by christian veterans.)

I have started reading your blog…but have to do so in increments, so it’ll be slow going for a bit.

I want to see you and other atheists apply the same level of criticism to ALL faiths. Not just the easy ones.

If I come across that in your blog..I will retract this comment. Fair enough ?

“Lt. Ryan Finnegan said in a statement to Fox News & Commentary. “As
Marines, we are proud to honor our fallen brothers, and are also proud
of our extended Marine Corps family. However, it is important to follow
procedure and use appropriate processes for doing this in a correct
manner to protect the sentiment from question as well as be good
stewards of our taxpayer dollars.””

Say what you will about the merits of the case, it’s a sad day when an utterance such as that quoted above comes out of the mouth of a United States Marine.

I think the Lieutenant is probably a boot butter bar who needs a serious talking to.

Dismissing my explanation of how the Constitution separates government and religion, you assert simply “[i]t does not work that way” and comfort yourself instead that this issue is as simple as reading the words of the First Amendment and announcing that anyone observing the separation of government and religion seeks to “replace” the Amendment’s text.  I can assure you it does not work that way.

Nor is the Constitution some detailed code of law as you seem to suppose.  Rather it sets forth a variety of provisions, some quite detailed (of the sort you seem to have in mind) setting forth specific requirements, authorizations, or prohibitions and some quite general (of a sort you seem unready to acknowledge) setting forth principles to guide, but not precisely prescribe, future government actions.  Moreover, you seem not to recognize that courts interpret each provision of the Constitution in the context of the whole, so that the entirety of it is given the meaning intended.  It is in that way, thus, that the courts understand that the Constitution did not extend the federal government’s powers to matters of religion and god(s), and the First Amendment’s further provision supports that fundamental limitation and does not comprise the sum and substance of it.

Were the courts to approach interpretation of the Constitution in the simple manner you urge, they would be hard put to resolve actual cases.  No, they need to take a more realistic and reasonable approach.  By your reckoning, I suppose, the court would need to quit talking about “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” and never again use those heretofore fundamental constitutional principles to interpret the Constitution and decide cases because . . . well, those magic words don’t appear in the text.

Dismissing my explanation of how the Constitution separates government and religion, you assert simply “[i]t does not work that way” and comfort yourself instead that this issue is as simple as reading the words of the First Amendment and announcing that anyone observing the separation of government and religion seeks to “replace” the Amendment’s text.  I can assure you it does not work that way.

Nor is the Constitution some detailed code of law as you seem to suppose.  Rather it sets forth a variety of provisions, some quite detailed (of the sort you seem to have in mind) setting forth specific requirements, authorizations, or prohibitions and some quite general (of a sort you seem unready to acknowledge) setting forth principles to guide, but not precisely prescribe, future government actions.  Moreover, you seem not to recognize that courts interpret each provision of the Constitution in the context of the whole, so that the entirety of it is given the meaning intended.  It is in that way, thus, that the courts understand that the Constitution did not extend the federal government’s powers to matters of religion and god(s), and the First Amendment’s further provision supports that fundamental limitation and does not comprise the sum and substance of it.

Were the courts to approach interpretation of the Constitution in the simple manner you urge, they would be hard put to resolve actual cases.  No, they need to take a more realistic and reasonable approach.  By your reckoning, I suppose, the court would need to quit talking about “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” and never again use those heretofore fundamental constitutional principles to interpret the Constitution and decide cases because . . . well, those magic words don’t appear in the text.

You have certainly earned my respect for this.  I am impressed, and must admit I would never have expected this, given your first words to me!  I hope you enjoy the site!  

You have certainly earned my respect for this.  I am impressed, and must admit I would never have expected this, given your first words to me!  I hope you enjoy the site!  

You have certainly earned my respect for this.  I am impressed, and must admit I would never have expected this, given your first words to me!  I hope you enjoy the site!  

They’ve changed their story just a bit.  In yesterday’s paper:
“We put it there for all our brothers and sisters,” Book said Friday. “It has no serious connotation toward Christianity. We were bearing the cross for the guys we lost, the guys we’re losing today and the guys we’re going to lose.” 
So, yeah, the intent is to represent EVERYONE.  But it is, of course, a christian cross, not appropriate (as you just said) to represent Marines of other faiths or of no faith.

Yeah…my first words were typed in anger. Sometimes I type before I think. So I do apologize for wishing you were “drop kicked onto a freeway”. It was ridiculously infantile.

I think the good Lieutenant is properly observing that it is good to honor fallen brothers AND do so in a manner in keeping with the Constitution.

“There are no atheist’s in fighting holes”
If true, (it’s not) would that then mean that there would be no wars without religion?

How does it feel to piss on the Constitution you swore to uphold?

Are you familiar with the Jefferson Bible? The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, is a retelling of the story of Jesus’s life and teachings with all reference to divinity or miracles removed. Jefferson was a Deist and rewrote the New Testament to fit his beliefs (or rather, to remove the things he did not believe).

Not anymore! It only takes “faith” in observation and the Law of Large Numbers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdvWrI_oQjY

You Americans come across as really defensive and self destructive. This is no different to any other form of officially sanctioned religion on public land. Set a precedent and stick to it. But add USMC and a memorial aspect and your brains go to mash. No wonder you haven’t noticed you are in free fall.

The Atheist postition stands to show how many americans do not care about our soldiers and their families! They are not fighting for anything worth value here. They are just taking hurting the fabric of america and its history. There has always been a cross to signify the fallen.
The Marines should stand together and fight this action against them and the American Soldier!