----- Original Message ----- From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 12:17 AM Subject: Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
> At 12:09 AM 6/16/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: > >The VFW often burns flags John. :-) > > You caught me! > > Still, even if the VFW were unceremoniously burning flags in Mojave, I > think that they'd probably have a lot more support on Brin-L than they have > received for memorializing our First World War dead..... With me, they would, even though I would personally appreciate a cross in any family memorial when I die. The reason is the vast difference in the types of acts involved. Let me explain my position with an example that illustrates the difference I am talking about by controlling another variable. Let us say that, in 2000, Bikers for Bush wanted to stage a giant rally on the Washington Mall. I would strongly support their right to do so. It is political speech, and it better darned well be protected. I would be upset with Clinton if he did anything but make sure that they followed the usual requirements for massed marches, regarding logistics, etc. (i.e. the same requirements that he would require for causes he has supported.) At the same time, if Governmental Gurus for Gore wished to erect a statue of Gore, with wondrous words praising his deeds on the Mall, I'd be strongly opposed. If Clinton were to allow that, I'd be upset with him again. The difference is quite apparent. One is an expression of views over a precise range of time. Governmental lands should be an acceptable place for this. Even if the leaders of government are strongly opposed to the ideas, they must allow the expression of the ideas. But, they need not allow people to set up permanent memorials that state their view. A cross on my grave would represent, to me, my hope in resurrection by the saving power of Jesus, who died on the cross for my sins. A cross, as a memorial for all the World War I dead is problematic. Do Jews, who were taunted as Christ killers, really want a cross to memorialize them? I know a lot of Christians that would be very upset if an idol of one of the minor Hindu gods were placed on governmental lands as a memorial to the war dead....particularly if it included a beloved member of their family. I would strongly support the rights of Christians to be able to conduct worship services on public lands. I see no reason to prohibit the pope from saying mass in a public area when he comes to the US. I also see no reason to prohibit the Dali Lama either. I would be strongly opposed to shutting all public lands to religious groups. But, I would not support a holy statue of Blessed/Saint John XXXIII being placed on the mall by President Kerry. So, the difference between flag burning and a permanent cross on public lands is very clear to me. One is allowing political expression. I support that, as since allowing private political religious expression is clearly enshrined in the first amendment. The other is the government supporting a particular religious view: which is reasonably interpreted as establishing religion, and thus prohibited by the same first ammendment. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
