Cry-baby atheists at Camp Pendleton
In 2003 before they deployed to Iraq, several Marines erected a crude cross in the sand at Camp Pendleton. AT east three of those Marines wouldn’t return from iraq. Their cross burned during a brushfire in 2007, but Scott Radetski rebuilt the cross and made it fireproof and helped to put it back in the spot where the original had been.
Now, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers is offended by the sight of something they can’t see according to Stars & Stripes;
After an article about the new cross appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers protested to base officials that the cross violates the separation of church and state required by the Constitution.
At their website, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers calls the cross erected by grieving friends of fallen Marines “stolen valor”.
Ya know, I’m not particularly religious…I haven’t been in a church in decades…but I’m not in the habit of ruining other peoples’ beliefs. And I don’t see the erection of a cross in the desert as particularly harmful or dangerous. And I certainly don’t like an organization who thinks that they have the corner on the market of “free thinkng”.
Category: Military issues
Well, Joe, I know it’s a difficult concept for you to grasp, but most of the folks around here are huge believers in that pesky freedom thing. That includes allowing others to act stupid in public.
Joe used to be a dyslexic agnostic, sitting around all day and wondering if there really was a Dog.
Joey: Thanks for the response. Your impression of the folks at this site is at odds with mine. I find the majority of commenters here to be bright, decent, humorous, straight shooters. There is anger, but TAH has no monopoly on that. Heartlessness? There is none, unless you consider it heartless to want to beat the daylights out of those who would dismantle our country, its constitutional government and its economic system. Bitterness? Sure, there might be some but it’s not prevalent. On the contrary, for some here and what they’ve gone through or are going through, I’m amazed that there isn’t a great deal of bitterness. And when it comes to the far-right stuff, I find that much more often than not, people here aren’t interrested in the D or the R at all. Conservative? Absolutely. My way or the highway? Absolutely not–unless someone’s hurting a kid or burning Old Glory, or something. Then, duck and cover.
Dammit Joe, you lunkhead. It’s sepAration, not seperation.
“….. i never felt pressured by anyone in the military to associate myself with any religion”. That may well be, but go talk to some of the guys and girls at the Air Force academy and you’ll get a completely, and I mean completely, different story. They may even have carted off some people.
There’s plenty of private land available for that sort of thing, and that’s fine. So keep it private, not on public (i.e., my) land.
PS 2-17 AirCav, that’s one of those words I always have a hard time spelling.
@50 Still looking for that separation thingy.
Text of the First amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
So, you saying that YOU have talked with people at the AF Academy, Joe?? You might want to be careful with this answer, too, because some of us have indeed talked with folks there. Might even know a few. Might even have served with a few of them. Could even be related to some who are/were.
Just trying to get my head around just what it is that is so offending you about something you cannot see, were not asked to support or pay for, and will have zero impact on your life whatever. Actually, it has no impact on anyone other than the few for which it is a memorial – tucked into an out of the way spot not bothering anyone or anything. (In other words, it’s none of your business!)
To those of you who haven’t been to church in years, here’s some good news: The churches are still open for business. Saints need not apply and the roof doesn’t fall in on sinners. What the heck. If nothing else, you’ll make someone in your life very happy if you drop in one Sunday. And no, I am not recruiting. I have my own soul to worry about, thank you.
When crosses, a specifically Christian symbol, is placed on private property, atheists and agnostics sue to have the offending symbol taken down. When the Latin Kings tag their garage door, these same atheists and agnostics don’t say a damned thing. If the symbol were a Magen David or sickled Moon and Star – again there is deafening silence.
Folks today are well aware of Guy Fawkes, but not Bloody Mary. They’ve heard of the Puritans of Salem, but not the pilgrims sponsored by Lord Baltimore. Simple, decent study of history provides the key insight: to prevent the wholesale slaughter of fellow Americans over which practice of religion will be followed, America will not have an official state religion. That was fought for by George Mason. That is why Jews and later other religions abandoned the Old World for America: the simple Christian dignity of practicing one’s own religion.
There is a larger principle at play than BS interpretations of the 1st Amendment. Will our military be moral, or amoral? Will it practice discernment in shoot/don’t shoot situations, or laze&blaze and f*ck whomever is caught in the fire? Will a soldier lay down his/her life for their comrade?
Taking issue with the Cross is an obvious attempt to amoralize our Marine Corps. Might as well piss on every grave in Arlington while they’re at it. We won’t have Marines anymore, just a murdering cluster of NKVD.
As
>I’d be interested as to where you draw the lines for ‘sides’
CI- The side that says that our history wasn’t founded on Judeo-Christian ethics versus those that do.
>One need look no farther than David Barton to prove that case.
I agree.. Barton isn’t a historian.
>As far as gauging how devout the founders were or how much people relied on religion, let’s not forget the context of the very recent history [to that time] where religious interference in government – and vice versa – was the norm.
I also agree.. That is why I said for every Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, & Adams there were more overt devout founding fathers like Samuel Adams & Patrick Henry.
>Many of the founders were deists.
No a FEW founders were deist-like I said the ones that get quoted the most.
>Their personal beliefs are irrelevant, though, as the Constitution clearly establishes a strictly secular government
The argument wasn’t whether we are a secular government which by todays definition of “secular” we definitely weren’t back then. The argument was that we are founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I don’t know what the big deal is to admit that.
>Yeah, I believe you’ve read a lot of history. I bet it was all primary sources, too. Right…
Umm you would be wrong since I can actually quote founders other than the three glory boys..
@62 – “CI- The side that says that our history wasn’t founded on Judeo-Christian ethics versus those that do.”
Got’cha. I think I was misinterpreting your position with one of “we’re a Christian nation”. I don’t disagree that J/C values weighed heavily in our founding, and the documents and ideas that were used as reference.
Melle – most folks don’t know that most of the signers were preachers, choir masters, and trained in seminaries. Heh
>Got’cha. I think I was misinterpreting your position with one of “we’re a Christian nation
Had you asked me this in the early 1900’s; I would have said we are. After the 20th century-we aren’t. Most Americans generally say they are Christian, but a lot of things have muddied those waters.
> most folks don’t know that most of the signers were preachers, choir masters, and trained in seminaries. Heh
Exactly! The establishment clause was much more based on their paranoia that the state would interfere with the church not vice versa. They came from England where their were bloody uprisings like Cromwell etc. They didn’t want a federal government stating that Catholic was the religion vs. Protestant. They took the very narrow view that congress actually meant the federal Ccngress, hence why their states had official churches still.
@40: those would be monuments to an all powerful deity with the ability to create something more vast and complex and wonderful than any poor man will ever be able to understand. @45: the only “Shrill Dogma” I ever hear comes from y’all. Seriously turn your Uber Lib switch off and actually read some of the comments you post, or King, or OG. they get more and more shrill as pretty much everyone here tares up your “rational” arguments with History Facts and Logic. @57: ACTUALLY, in the west there isn’t so much. The federal government owns 90% of Nevada, California is not much better. Also one could make the argument (as Liberals often do) that that land is partly owned by the tax payer. Seeing as a majority of tax payers are in fact christian OR have no problem with displays of religion it would seem that the many would be bending over backwards to cater to the few. If its not actually causing any harm (physically OR emotionally) the WHY DO SO??? Lastly Joe I want to share with you an experience I had at Ft Sam Houston. See there was this old retiree that would go on Base before 232 Med BN (where they train Medics) went to PT. He would carry a cross that was really heavy and sing hymns. Every day, rain or shine he would be there, and when he got to the place where we’d turn to run past the Post crematory, and do our regular 3.5 mile route he would stop and Salute us. when we would make our return trip to the Barracks, he would be there again with the cross on hos back rendering a perfect hand salute. I even had a Drill Sergeant order quicktime march and eyes right in response. none was bothered by the old man. No one complained that he was there. We recognized it for what it was. An old retiree wishing a crop of young Medics (most of whom would soon be in a war) good luck and Godspeed. He was praying for our… Read more »
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, 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… Read more »
Thoughtful, well written piece Mr. Indeap.
Graven Images,Idolatry.