Does the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution mandate a complete separation between church and state? Or does it only forbid the government from establishing a religion or placing one religion over another? Both of these questions are raised when a marine base places a cross on top of a hill to honor fallen comrades. What's your take?
Crosses and the Constitution
The memorial sign may be public land, but it is not a government building or a symbol of the nation as a whole. It is a resting place for the fallen. The religious views of the marines should be respected, and since the cross is not starting any violence, people have to respect the marine's rights to free speech, also stated in the first amendment. The decision should fall to the men in the marines who are still fighting whether or not to keep the cross standing. Any marine or family of a fallen marine who does not agree with the cross should find another cemetery that fits their religious beliefs, or they could set up their own symbols of mourning by the grave of their loved one. The additions of other symbols on the hill should be be made by the families of marines or marines themselves only.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Nasrallah
Period 2
In the political sense, the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment should call for a complete separation of church and state. However, this nation was built on faith and religion, and as such, religion insists on being present in every aspect, including the military. While I personally don't see a problem with placing a cross to honor the deceased soldiers who gave up their lives for their country, I can recognize why it would bother others. I believe that people should be able to express their religion, so long as one religion, usually Christianity, doesn't become offended if another religious group decides to do the same with their own religious symbol. Then it's just hypocritical. So long as the grasps of religion stays with the honoring of dead soldiers and not with the living, I don't think there should be a problem.
ReplyDeleteUrsula Garcia
Period 2
I think our country does need a separation of state and church. Since our country is primarily Christianity, the Establishment Clause, thankfully lets us have our freedom of religion. Because our people wouldn't be too happy with sticking to just one religion. In my opinion there isn't really a deal when a soldier dies, there's a cross put upon his grave. He or she died for honor for our country. As long as neither of the religions are offended by it, then it should be safe to express because this is a country of freedom and we should be able to do and express what we have as our right
ReplyDeleteMichelle
Period 3
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution does not mandate a complete separation between church and state. I believe that the founding fathers meant for the establishment clause to be more or less to forbid the government from establishing a religion or placing one religion over another. I feel that if the majority of the marines wanted to erect a cross, they should be allowed to. If a minority of the marines wanted to erect a different religious symbol, they should also be allowed to. Random groups that advocate for the separation of church and state that have no involvement with the marines should not have a say in this matter.
ReplyDelete~Nathan Shen
Period 3
I believe that the wording of the establishment clause allows for the blurred line between church and state to exist as sort of a compromise. Personally, I believe that there should be solid line separating church and state, and that the government should not become even slightly entangled in religious matters. I believe that the best solution at hand for the problem is the proposed one. I don't believe that religious displays should be allowed at all, but a compromise where all religions are represented evenly seems like the best answer to me, because religion is inseparable from our country. I agree that the additions should be performed by marines only.
ReplyDeleteThomas Tichy
per. 3
I think that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution does not mandate a complete separation between church and state, but it does forbid the government from establishing a religion and placing one religion over another. I think that placing a cross on top of a hill to honor fallen comrades is okay as long as other religious signs can join in on the showcase as well. That would be the only fair and simple thing.
ReplyDeleteMariam Kamal, Period 2
The Establishment Clause does not completely ban religion from this nation so I personally think a cross over fallen Marines is perfectly acceptable; the cross has not caused any violence. However I also believed other religious groups should be able to put up their religious symbols as well. When the government begins choosing what religious symbols can be put up and which can't, then we as Americans have a problem.
ReplyDeleteChelsea Straight-Period 3
I believe the establishment clause can go either direction. Since it is vague, it is clear to see that it is up to the Supreme Court to interpret how far religion can be towards the government. And this article cleary brings out the fact that religion is not completely seperate from our government system. However being of a minority religion, it is obvious to me to see that in most cases the government is seperated from religion enough to allow to live a nice pressureless life. (in most cases)
ReplyDeleteQuinton Goodman
P.3
The Establishment Clause was added to the Constitution to do exactly as you have stated: protect minority faiths. At the time, there weren't too many minority faiths, but there were certainly minority factions within Christianity that this clause was meant to protect from persecution. I'm glad you feel that for the most part, you are free to practice your faith freely without undue pressure.
DeleteThe Establishment Clause doesn't state that there needs to be a full separation between church and state, but that one religion cannot be set as a state religion or that one cannot be preferentially treated over another. The Marines should be able to place a cross; they're paying their respects to the fallen soldiers. If others don't agree with this, they need to check out why they are there. Why take away someone's
ReplyDeleteability to pay their respects when you're there to do the same? Either find another cemetary or place your own symbol there. Obviously they're not trying to harm or offend anybody by putting up the cross.
Haley Shepherd, Period 2
The Establishment Clause does not require a complete separation between church and state. I feel that as long all other religions are welcome and that this branch of the military does not make a cross their official symbol or Christianity their official religion, then honoring Marines with a cross is just fine. I may be bias due to the fact that I am Christian but I would expect equal treatment for all religions. Like Quinton said, if you are a part of a minority religion, our government is separated enough from religion that there is never pressure put in place to believe a certain faith.
ReplyDeleteYasmine Andrawis
P. 2
In essence, the Establishment Clause forbids the government from advocating or placing one religion over the other for any purpose; I don't think it mandates complete separation of church and state. Like Quinton mentioned, the clause is vague as it doesn't specify what the Clause applies to, and so there are different interpretations. However, I don't think the fact that a cross that has been placed on top of a hill to honor fallen military personnel should be a problem. Is it personally affecting the citizens? Does it threaten the security and the principles of the country? If it does not, then placing a cross to honor the military should not be branded as "controversial" when really, the fallen personnel are being honored and it is not a direct threat to the freedom of others.
ReplyDeleteDeshna Majmudar, Period 3
When, then, is it not ok for a government institution, be it the military, school, or city council to use overtly religious symbols on their property? What makes it ok in one instance, but not ok in another?
DeleteAlthough I believe there should be a distinct separation between church and state, the establishment clause, like Nathan said, does not mandate a direct separation between the church and state. The use of the cross representing those who have passed is not necessarily establishing a religion but rather, using its symbolic meaning to honor the deceased. I do agree though, that those who are offended or put off by the cross, should also obtain the same right to put any religious/ non-religious symbol they want in regards to same manner the cross was placed.
ReplyDelete-Pattie B. Per.2
I don't believe that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution completely separates church and state because government members still uphold some kind of religious belief and religion still plays a role in governmental issues. For example, making homosexual marriage legal. It's a government issue, but religion also plays a part in whether or not homosexual marriage should be legalized based on what people believe as their religion. I believe the Establishment Clause only forbids the government from establishing a religion, forcing everyone in our country to believe in that religion and placing one religion over the other. I don't know much about religion, to be honest, but I would think that a cross (whether for Christianity or Catholicism) represents their beliefs on religion either way because they both have the cross as a religious symbol. I feel like as long as it doesn't offend anyone, then placing a cross is completely fine. However, since we don't know the religious beliefs of the fallen comrades, maybe an inspirational quote on a plaque to honor them is more appropriate and less controversial.
ReplyDelete-Kathy Hu
Period 2
As others have commented the Establishment Clause, like much in the Constitution, it is vague and definitely open to interpretation. I do not think there is a true, definite mandate in distinctly separating the church and government. As a non-religious student, I see that clause as appropriate and namely, for respect to all religions. Although America clearly intertwines its history with the Christian faith, it is necessary to be aware that other religions exist and should be shown equal amount of respect as Christianity. As for the crosses at Camp Pendleton, I see the kind intent and honorable gesture they were making, yet I do not believe it is fair for everyone. No matter where you are in the world, a cross is the universally accepted symbol for Christianity and by placing that at the memorial, it is almost as if they believe their religion to be the only religion. There are other ways to honor the deeds of our soldiers.
ReplyDelete-Tiffany Hsu, P.2
(By the way, I would simply like to point out I have finally successfully blogged before midnight. =])
The establishment clause of the first Amendment, up to this point, does not mandate a complete separation between church and state. For example, the fairly unknown cross that was erected on the base on behalf of the first baptism in California has not been removed after being there for several years, but other crosses on the base are suddenly causing uproar. Also, there is a blending of church and state when the United States government provides financial aid to non-secular schools with tax payer dollars—as long as it is spent on a secular activity. Both of these examples cause a mixing of church and state. They cause there to be a grey area of uncertainty because court decisions can differ on a case by case basis.
ReplyDeleteSarah Alaniz
Period 3
The Establishment Clause in the First amendment states that there does not need to be a complete separation between church and state. Although, it also states that you cannot advance one religion and inhibit another. Congress cannot make any law prohibiting free exercise of religion Due to the vagueness of the clause there have been complications. Like others mentioned, it can be interpreted in various ways by different people. Everyone should be able to freely exercise their beliefs and no one should have to feel like they're religion isn't good enough or less than another. When government gets involved in such matters, it creates a major problem in such a diverse society.
ReplyDeleteRimsha Younas -p2
The Establishment Clause does not require a complete separation between church and state. For this reason I feel that there is nothing wrong with the Marines erecting a cross at Camp Pendleton to honor their fallen comrades. The cross does not primarily serve as a religious symbol, but also as a memorial for those who have died. Our Constitution guarantees the protection of such liberties as religion, so there should be no contest as to whether the cross at the Marines base is appropriate or not.
ReplyDeleteKarina Jonas
Period 3
The constitution is vague on the establishment clause but I'd say that it is saying to have a separation of church and state to an extent and especially not having the govt place a religion higher than the others or making a national religion. But in this situation I highly doubt that the marines placed that cross up there to say that Christianity is higher than the rest of the religions but to just mourn and pay their respects to their fallen comrades and not intend to cause an uproar.
ReplyDeleteBraxton Matthews P. 3
Like the others have stated, I too do not believe that the Establishment Clause calls for a complete separation of church and state. As a result of the vagueness of this part of the First Amendment, the extent of the actually separation depends on the interpretation of the situation the clause is being applied to. Like most aspects of the government, a spectrum ranging from lenient to extremely strict application of the Establishment Clause is found within the opinions of Americans today. For this reason, neither opinion is truly the majority view. To those belonging to the Christian faith, the cross is a beautiful testament to those that have fallen for our country. However, to those belonging to any of the other various religions, the cross may have the effect of promoting said religion over theirs. Due to the lack of their equally symbolic relics, they may even feel as if their religion is viewed as the inferior to Christianity. Like Tiffany mentioned, their are plenty of other ways to honor the soldiers that have lost their lives for our country; which may even be found to favor all of the religions in a manner that is not controversial or unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteBrianna Banks
Period 3
I believe that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not require a complete separation between church and state. I think the Establishment clause is in place to prevent one religion from being placed over another. Religious symbols should be accepted from all religions, not only Christianity, so placing a cross over the grave of a dead soldier should be a manner of honoring, not offending.
ReplyDeleteYostina Halaka
Period 3
I think that the Establishment Clause doesn't require a complete separation between church and state but it someways they should always be so separated nor always mingling together. I think that puttting the cross in front of the camp in honor of the marines who died should be allowed but i also think that if a soldier from other religious background dies in battle they should be honored with their religious symbol like the article said. I think the Establishment Clause is in the Bill of Rights because the framers didn't want superiority of religion and also they didn't want religion to govern the nation like it had done in the past in England. I feel as long as other religions get the opportunity to display their symbols it shouldn't be that much of a problem.
ReplyDeleteKatherine Barragan
Period: 3
I don't think the Establishment Clause requires a COMPLETE separation of church and state. I think that it's a good way to show how we care for the marines that have passed on and people should realize that. I think that religious affiliations are okay in certain situations as long as every religion gets represented equally.
ReplyDeleteBrandi Henry
Per. 3
The Establishment Clause doesn't require completely seperation of church and state and I don't think that it should. A cross on a military base isn't affecting anyone greatly and is a symbol of respect to those fallen soldiers. I don't see the problem with showing respect though religion to someone who died protecting us.
ReplyDeleteJaylin Stevenson Per 2
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment creates a separation between church and state. It is difficult to say whether the government has a complete separation of the state because, since the beginning of America, the Constitution and the Founding Fathers incorporated Christianity into their documents. America was created for the freedom of the people. By placing one religion over another, the government would be seen as unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteSince Christianity is widely believed, it is more widely accepted. America's founders believed religion to be the "first liberty". Everyone has the right to practice their own religion. Everyone has the right to commemorate someone in battle with a cross--so long as Congress does not enforce a national religion. Religion has been interwoven into American history. The most significant one is Christianity, but there are other types--Islam, Muslim, Buddhist. Marines and soldiers should be allowed to add their own symbols and religious items on public property.
--Michelle Young, Period 2
I believe that the establishment clause was used to protect other religions from being overpowered by the major religion Christianity. I think, like the article said, it would be better if the marines of different religions were also allowed to put a symbol of their faith on the hill. That way there would be equal opportunities between all religions and no one would be able to complain since they would all be represented.
ReplyDeleteMelissa Hannan pd 3
I agree with others when they say that there should be a definite separation between church and state, but that the Establishment Clause does not enforce or mandate a direct and indefinite separation. Placing a cross over those who have fallen I wouldn’t say is establishing a religion but is simply honoring those who fallen, and if others want to do some for followers of the religion who have fallen as well, then they should very well have the right to do so without hesitation. Overall as long as one religion isn’t put on a pedestal above others, then there should be no problem.
ReplyDelete-Jack P3.
No where in the constitution does it call for seperation of church and state. That's just one view, an interpretation, of the constitution. Besides, it wasn't as if the base commanding general there told them to put up the crosses, it was the marines themselves. The article also said how would one feel if other religious symbols were used- I would be completely fine with it. This is not a case of one religion taking superiority over another, it's simply that a group of people banded together in collective grief. I mean, there's a church on the base. Does everyone think that should be removed too? Let people practice their faith they way they see fit. No one told other religions that can't put up there symbols there, it's just that no one's done it.
ReplyDeleteAlex Santrach
Per. 2
oops, meant to say complete seperation of church and state.
DeleteIn this country, I think we as a culture have become way too sensitive over this religious issue in the land. I do understand that with so many religions and denominations in one country - where every single citizen without any discrimination towards any of them deserves life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - there has to be equal protection of each religion as to ensure the citizens these things. But why is it such an offense to erect a cross in memoriam of one's fallen comrades? The intentions were made pretty clear that the crosses were raised not to promote a single religion but to mourn their friends.
ReplyDeleteI read an article by Ben Stein, a Jew, where he noted how First Lady Michelle Obama in an interview during the Christmas season referred to Christmas trees as "Holiday Trees" as to avoid any religious bias. Outraged, Stein illustrated how even as a Jew he doesn't mind the Christian tradition of a "Christmas Tree." It in no way offends or obstructs the celebration of Hannukah. So why are we so afraid of ever being reminded that many of us believe in God or a higher power? Religion has turned into a scar we won't let heal because we keep pealing it.
Sam Yassa per. 3
It doesn't madate anything as we said in class, there are just 3 points of view: accomodationist, nonpreferentialist, and separationist. Being an accomodationist, I believe that the crosses at camp Pendleton should stand. The establishment only forbids gov't from placing one religion over another. As most of our country is Christian, and the marines who died protecting our country were christian, I believe we should let it stand. If they were Jewish or Islamic--the marines died in Iraq so they probably weren't--the gov't should let them have a symbol of either of those religions. It's not favoring Christianity, that's just what the Marines happened to be, and as most people in the US are "Christian" it is a widely held memorial symbol which I don't believe gov't is favoring. Respect the brave soldiers who died, don't be politically correct.
ReplyDeleteP2
If the soldiers who put up the cross were not of the Christian faith, would they have been able to erect a monument of their choosing? Was there an actual requirement for the monument to be a cross?
ReplyDeleteI agree in the separation of church and state, but i don't think this applies to commemoration of lost soldiers. They are not holding a ceremony in which they require everyone to attend and pray to God; they are simply honoring their friends. Of course if it was required that the monument be a cross or if it was that no other religious symbols should be monumented, then i would say it was wrong. There should be equal opportunity for any person of any religion to honor the soldiers.
Sully p-2
I don't honestly believe that the placement of a mere cross to honor fallen members of military will establish a religion or place one religion (Christianity) over another. The implications of this cross are simply that these friends are being honored. Like many before me have said, this is simply a memorial, not a mandatory prayer meeting or even anything associated with religion. Because of their fear of lawsuits, many institutions have gone too far to protect themselves by becoming so politically correct that even a memorial cross can be taken to be religiously evil in nature. Moreover, the cross is a universal representation of death and is serves as both a gravemarker and a symbol of Jesus Christ. The traditional usage of the cross, I believe, makes it appropriate for a setting like this and should not be questioned too severely by others.
ReplyDeleteIn my personal opinion, I believe that it is a right of a marine to erect a cross in honor of his fallen comrade(s.) While the Constitution does not allow for Congress to make a law respecting the establishment of a religion, it does not call for complete separation between church and state. In regards to the cross marking the location of the first baptism in America, that is more of a grey area. The cross is within an American military base, which technically is an endorsement a religion. However, the cross also represents a landmark (in the eyes of some) event in history. Overall, the cross was erected for the purpose of venerating a fallen comrade, and not the government endorsement of Christianity. In conclusion, the cross does not violate the 1st amendment of Constitution.
ReplyDelete-Spencer Thompson Period 2
No one said other religions couldn't place there symbols on the hill, so whats the problem? The Establishment Clause can clearly be interpreted to have several different meanings, it's a matter of opinion. As for me no I don't have a problem with seeing a cross on a hill, or any other symbol for that matter. I probably wouldn't look at it twice. People need to stop being so dramatic and making scandals out of nothing. No religion is being undermined here, the soldiers just happened to be Christian.
ReplyDeleteFacundo Sirri
Period 2
Erecting crosses in place of a marine's burial site is not reason for provoking or advertising the Christian faith over others. The action of erecting the crosses truly means a sign of respect. The marines and any of our military personnel deserve to be respected and honored for their services and the establishment of theses crosses is one of the most respectful way to do it. Many argue that the cross, as a religious symbol, provokes one religion over others. In reality, the cross is not the only way to show respect because just as a number of students have said, other faiths have the freedom to place any of their own religious symbols as a sign of respect. Many argue that this is a violation of church and state when in reality what the separation of church and state means is that the church will have no influence on the decisions of the government. People too often forget that this religious form of expression, one that is a constitutionally protected form of speech, is intended as a sign of respect not of superiority.
ReplyDeleteRicardo Campos
Per. 3
Separation of church and state is incredibly important in my opinion. The United States is composed of so many cultures and background that it would be wrong to put one religion over another. That being said, I feel as if it is wrong to order the crosses down that are there in memory of the men and women in uniform and at the same time it is wrong to deny other religious groups the same freedom to erect a religious symbol in honor of their loved ones. The church and state must always be separated but citizens should have the freedom to practice their faiths, especially when it is in memory of loved ones.
ReplyDeleteClaire Freeman
Period 3
The establishment clause does not a require a full separation between church and state. I believe the way we run things now in days is the right Way of doing things-some separation but not completely. If soldiers want to honor a dead with a cross let them because they have (excuse my language) more balls to be able to be out there in war than all those other people in congress who get to rule who can pray where.
ReplyDeleteVanessa p 3
the establishment clause of the first amendment doesn't define a clear line between church and state, only makes it so that no one religion is dominant in America. I think the separation between church and state is important because so many different religions are celebrated and practiced. then again I don't have a problem with desplays of religion. if someone wants to put a giant cross in there yard then they should.
ReplyDeleteI believe the establishment clause of the first amendment exists in order to ensure the rights of any religion to be freely exercised so that not any one religion can be dominant in our country. Though the purpose of this clause is argued when a cross is erected for a fallen marine on the hill, I think this is a situation that does not pertain to this clause at all. The cross is put up for tradition just as the president closes with "God bless America" or how our currency reads "in God we trust". I don't believe that the intent of this tradition is to make Christianity appear superior but to rather recognize a tradition that has been in action for many many decades.
ReplyDeleteKelsi Holton
Period 3
Although the placing a cross over fallen comrades does seem unconstitutional, it should still be permissible because the marines have placed their lives on the line for our national security and should be entitled to use religious symbols to honor their dead. There is also the concept that this act of placing a cross on graves is done out of tradition as well, mainly due to the fact that even though America does not proclaim it , it pretty much exemplifies a Christian nation.
ReplyDeleteBryan Q
Period 3
The Establishment Clause was created to remove the governments power of creating a set religion over another. It was made to protect the rights of others when it comes to freedom of religion. When it comes to the marines, I believe it is completely fine to honor those who died fighting for this country with a cross on top of the hill. It is not threatening other people with a set religion, but instead just expressing their religion, and honoring their comrades. Yes, the marines may be established by the government, but they are still a group of individuals, and as a country we need to support them instead of criticize them, as they are risking their to protect this country. So I do believe that it is perfectly okay for them to honor their fallen comrades with crosses, and I believe we should take a step back and let them do as they please.
ReplyDeleteCody Wallace
Per. 3
Personally, I believe that there does need to be a complete separation between church and state, not only to prevent government intervention in churches and to prevent state religions and the like, but to stop the controversy that religion causes as well. In this case, if the military (a government institution) had not placed the cross on the hill, thereby endorsing christianity, there would be no controversy, simple as that. After all, its not as if the military needs a cross to mourn and honor fallen comrades. The other soldiers are entirely capable of honoring their fallen brothers on their own; they don't need to force others to honor them with a cross, the way the majority of America would, and in my opinion, the military is constitutionally incapable of doing so, being a government establishment.
ReplyDeleteNow I know what my opposition would say to this. I know they would say, "if they don't like it, they don't have to participate." While there is some merit to this argument, it is well established precedent that a government institution cannot endorse one faith over another. If there were to be Jewish symbols or perhaps Islamic symbols so that those particular faiths could honor their fallen comrades in their own way, that could be a step in the right direction.
However, as I have stated previously, if there are no religious symbols, and if the soldiers simply mourned and honored their fallen comrades in their own way, there would be no controversy. No one could be angry that the military endorses one religion over another. Simple as that.
-- Zack Benson, Per. 2
I believe that the Establishment Clause calls for complete separation of church and state. But because our nation was on religion and many Christian ideals are built into our society complete separation is difficult to achieve. Although I find no problem with marines erecting those crosses, others may, and if the marines were allowed to put up a cross then other marines should be allowed to put something up to represent their religion to ensure that it does not seem that Camp Pendleton is favoring one religion over another.
ReplyDeleteHayley AW
Per.3
I feel that the establishment clause clearly states that there be a complete separation of church and state. The founders knew that America had become a bastion for religious dissidents so any law advocating or leaning towards one religion would go against their original cause. Furthermore, i agree that a majority of Americans are christian and that leaning towards them wont necessarily affect people now such as the crosses placed upon the hill, but our country has a constantly changing demographic and perhaps in the future another religion will dominate the majority. Hence, the government should remain secular in its concerns in order to adapt to its citizens rapidly changing views.
ReplyDeleteThe establishment clause calls for the complete separation of church and state. I do not think that the crosses erected at Pendleton necessarily violate this clause. We must never forget that this nation was primarily built on Protestant faith along with many other Christian denominations. Religious connotation will be found everywhere. If the Marines made the decision to erect the crosses, then I think that choice should be respected. Also, I don't think the crosses at Pendleton are for religious purposes rather than honoring their fallen comrades.
ReplyDeleteKimi Kim, Period 3.
There should be a complete separation of church and state due to the establishment clause. Religion has no place in the choices and opinions of our government and our government has no place within religion. They should be free to practice their religion on their own time, but not when representing the nation.
ReplyDeleteKendall Mayfield
Period 2
The establishment clause does call for the complete separation of church and state, yes, however.. The second cross does not violate this clause like the first does. The second was planted as a sign of remembrance of the marines that died. But the first was just put up, I believe, and being that it is government ground, the first cross should not have been there because by allowing it to stay up seems to SOME that the government seems to favor the christianity faith. I personally don't mind, if everyone on that marine base was of the christian faith, then why not. But we must understand that America is perpetually changing its views and accepting new religions and social norms, so if this cross is okay, then we'd have to accept other religious symbols scattered around other government areas.
ReplyDeleteTamara p3
In the article it states that a cross is usually used to commemorate the dead, not specifically for religious purposes. the establishment clause calls for seperation of church and state but i believe this specifically applies to government/ federal and state events. placing a cross ,whether or not for religion, to commemorate fallen marines does not necessarily threaten the country or the government. And even if others were to commemorate the fallen marines individually there would be a possibility that crosses may be set up, as religion plays heavily into peoples lives.
ReplyDeletekimhao
p2
As everyone else has basically said, i also believe that the establishment clause clearly states that there should be a separation of church and state. Also, agreeing with Haley, the nation was built on many religious ideals so it probably isn't entirely possible to completely separate church and state from one another. It stated in the article that crosses are used to pay respect to the dead, so I am led to believe that the crosses at Pendelton are more to be respectful rather than religious. Also, as Kimi said, if the Marines chose to erect the crosses, that decision should be respected as well.
ReplyDeleteSahil Dhaliwal per. 3
(sorry for being late, Mr. C!! :( the internet was superrr sketchy yesterday and i couldn't really get online!! sorrry!!!!!)
The Establishment Clause is vague enough that both interpretations can be used in two different cases, rather frequently--even by the same person. I believe in terms of this article, they should be allowed to leave the crosses. The marines are honoring fallen comrades and we should honor that. Just like if a soldier of another faith died and they wanted to place something to honor him, they should be able to do that too. It does not pose any threat or harm, and as long as it continues to do so, it should be left alone.
ReplyDeleteCarolina Guzman
P.2
The Establishment Clause had the original intention of keeping church and state totally separate, but it was made vague to leave it to interpretation. I interpret it to mean that one religion cannot be placed above another. In the case of these crosses, I don't think they should be taken down. They were not put up to display a certain religion, they were put up in remembrance of fallen officers. It's not a true religious act, so it shouldn't be a big deal because there is no harm in it. However, if people are angry about the other religions of the fallen soldiers, then they should be able to put up other symbols as well. As long as it remains an act of remembrance and it is kept fair, they should be able to put up what they want.
ReplyDelete- Maddie Pickham, Period 3
Despite my personal secularism, I certainly do not view the placement of crosses for memorial purposes at military bases as a violation of the Establishment Clause to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The cross, although it is a symbol of the Christian faith, is not meant to intimidate non-Christians and is not used for religious worship. Neither does it force soldiers to observe religious doctrine. It is reasonable to question the constitutionality of this case, but these displays do not violate our Constitution and should be allowed to stand in memory of fallen soldiers.
ReplyDeleteMaliq Nixon, Per. 3
First there is no complete separation of church and state- keep this in mind .In this case the land isn't REALLY public. On paper it may be but if you or I were to try to walk on base we would be stopped. So if it is not public land than it is up to the government to decide because it is really THEIR land in this case. Some may say that that it's a religious symbol on government land and that can't stand. Normally I would agree but this doesn't really seem so bad seeing as it is used as a symbol of remembrance and it pertains more to the troops than government (if anyone has the right to put up a symbol its these guys). I believe it would be fair that as long as no one on base is offended it should stay and if they are offended their religious symbol should also be erected nearby or the original, removed, in the case of fairness. However what I believe would be fair is superseded by what I see as a better solution. For those of you who are not aware, the USMC has their own "Battle Cross" where they give their final wishes and respect to fallen comrades (I'll post a URL to a picture of the "Battle Cross" in the comment below). I believe a regular Battle Cross will serve this article's purpose, but an over-sized one will do better.
ReplyDeleteRyan Sidhu
Period: 2
http://www.google.com/imgres?num=10&hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&tbo=d&tbm=isch&tbnid=EzuuvQ01n6guGM:&imgrefurl=http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/10/marine-corps-fallen-commander-christopher-raible-silver-star-101812&docid=YjkPyMzG97BXhM&imgurl=http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/xml/news/2012/10/marine-corps-fallen-commander-christopher-raible-silver-star-101812/101812-bastion-atwell-mem-800.JPG&w=800&h=551&ei=ET28UIeJGeL7iwLZlQE&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=553&vpy=279&dur=688&hovh=186&hovw=271&tx=102&ty=96&sig=111270941669808013318&page=1&tbnh=141&tbnw=215&start=0&ndsp=27&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:0,i:120&biw=1280&bih=699
DeleteI like your perspective, I feel that instead of a cross a statue or other memorial can be erected on the hill. It would satisfy both parties, it honors the fallen solders while maintaining a secular image.
DeleteSigned: An Enlightened Mind
Diego Carvajal
Period.3 Team Liberal
I think that church and state should be completely separated. If this were to be the case, disagreements among religious issues would never arise in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAs for the cross on the military base, this is something that should be taken action upon. When the base puts up the cross, it might be interpreted as an advocacy for an established military religion. Despite its purpose to aid in the mourning of fallen comrades, the absence of it does not impede such actions. If the cross were to not be placed at the top of the hill, it will not in any way affect how the living remember the dead. Sure it's a symbol of reassurance, but the fact is that if you are going to place a symbol at the top of the hill, at least include other religious groups to stray away from the "only Christians are in the military" perspective. Many different people with different beliefs are involved in the military, therefore the display of one symbol might affect people not included within whichever religion is symbolized.
My opinion remains the same that the cross should either be removed or accompanied by other religious symbols in order to avoid controversy and protect the separation of church and state.
Alex Padden
Per. 3
interesting opinion, i kind of agreed but played it down but your explanation kind of rallies me back up. You do know we weren't supposed to do this though right?
DeleteRyan Sidhu
Period: 3
I like your idea Alex, but it would be difficult to apply. The military is largely conservative and tends to have many religious people in it; I doubt there can be complete separation of church and state. A more particle approach would be allowing all religious symbols to be displayed.
DeleteSigned: An Enlightened Mind
Diego Carvajal
Period.3 Team Liberal
I feel that the Establishment clause was created with the original intent to separate church and state, despite its intent it was made vague like many other statements in the Constitution, to be interpreted. I do not feel that putting up the cross violate the clause and this can be interpreted as legal, although if this is allowed then other religions should be able to be expressed as well. Since these are in memory of people who fought for the country I do feel that this should be allowed but it should be on equal terms.
ReplyDeleteLayla Thompson
per 2
The Establishment clause is a vague and grey area in the Constitution. it can be interpreted in many many ways and depends on who is reading it, or interpreting it. i myself feel this debate is pointless, although i am a Christian, i do not think it is a huge thing to make a fuss about. if you feel your religion is being cheated in a community, you can always express your religion in your own front yard. You come to America, knowing it's a dominate state of Christianity, should not expect everything to be perfect to EVERY single religion out there. You're not being cheated or ignored or looked as an inferior religion. You just can't name all the dead soldiers in a graveyard under EVERY religion at one time. Everyone else would be dead by the time the speech was done.
ReplyDeleteJoshua Roney
Period 5
I think that the religious symbols of all the soldiers should be on display in the graveyard. That way, the government shows no favoritism to either religion and the solders will be with their religious symbol. I don't think the Marines meant to put up the crosses to enforce Christianity, but I think they should have thought it through a little bit better. The Establishment Clause was meant to have a separation of church and state but i don't think the founders every imagined having such a diverse American culture where there would be Muslims and even atheists. I think that in order to be fair, there should be an equal amount of attention for each religion in the eyes of the government, whether it is no attention at all or equally divided attention.
ReplyDeleteDanielle Delgado
P.2
People really need to suck it up and stop getting so noffended! The cross in this scenario is more like a gesture of acknowledging their death and lifeit is part of the culture,"cross is widely used in this country to commemorate the dead" so one can not compare it to, "imagine how they would feel if a symbol of Islam or Judaism were placed on the hillside instead." To relieve the tension in the argument people in the military should be asked-in the paperwork- whether they are fine with having the cross or if they prefer a different symbol or nothing at all.
ReplyDeleteAnaiss G.
Per.2
*offended *life it
DeleteThe separation of church and state is a good idea in theory, but people have been raised in there religions and we expect these people to just drop all their beliefs when it comes to politics and government land. If these crosses are not offending anyone and are helping people mourn the loss of fallen soldiers then they should be able to express their religion how they want. However I also believe that all religions should have equal rights to say what they want where they want as long as it is not hurting anyone or affecting legislation. Separation of church and state should apply to our government officials that have the ability to change or enforce legislation, but if a soldier wants to erect a cross or star of David they should be able to as long as there actions do not harm anyone.
ReplyDeleteRyan Lundstrom
Per. 5
I believe that there should be a complete separation of church and state. There should be no stop as to what a person wants to practice. There should be equal attention to all religions and not one. It should not matter what god a person wants to believe in. The religious symbols of each of the soldiers should be allowed to be shown in the grave yard. Me, personally being Catholic, am do not find it wrong that they put up a cross but I can see how that might offend some people since us would show that the union has a main religion. Even though I say that, our country was founded on a certain religion and that religion will always be apart of the country. Although the establishment clause is supposed to keep government away from religion, there is not complete separation.
ReplyDeleteRachel Martinez
Per. 5
I feel like that the government facility isn't expressing preference towards Christianity due to it being a monument expressing the fallens' faith. However, it is on government land, so it could be thought of that way when non-Christians see it. Personally, I don't think it is a big deal because it's commemorating the dead. Historically, I think it breaches the interpretation of separation between church and state.
ReplyDeleteJust because many people associate the cross to Christianity doesn't mean that every person thinks like that. The marine was placing that cross to aknowledge those that have died, which in his case may have nothing to do with religion. There shouldn't be anything against it, especially since they're not advocating religion and because the fallen have died to protect us; therefore, this is a simple way to honor them.
ReplyDeleteALejandra Sanchez
Period 5
I believe people should be able to put a memorial to someone so long as its not on government buildings grounds. Unless it is put up by government officials in which case it should be about the deceased's religion not an ad by the government which the establishment clause and excercise clause prohibit.
ReplyDeleteMiguel gonzalezp.2
I feel like the constitution may not have meant for... i take that back, i feel like the founders didn't really mean to make a government that involved church and state together. That is just what has happened over the course of the years. I do believe that it is wrong, even being a christian, a part of the majority, i still believe pushing religion on others is immoral. Even in the slightest of ways, such as currency or a cross on a hill.
ReplyDeleteJames Robinson
Period 5
While I have no quarrel with Christians, I believe the cross should not have been erected. It was dedicated to all the deceased soldiers from Iraq, not all of whom were Christian. They did not ask for a religious memorial. What the base should have done was build a statue or other monument to commemorate the troops, one that has no religious significance. However it would be difficult to remove the cross now, it would create enormous controversy. The best solution for now is that of the author's, let all symbols from different religions be placed on the hill.
ReplyDeleteThe focus of such a memorial is not to promote Christian values, but to honor the fallen troops. We must remember these soldiers died representing this country and its beliefs, including freedom of religion.
Signed: An Enlightened Mind
Diego Carvajal
Period.3 Team Liberal
As I was reading the article, even before I reached the last paragraph, I was thinking to myself, "Why don't they just allow other marines and their families/ friends of non-Christian faiths to place their own religious symbols on the hill to honor their fallen loved ones?" This would mean that the base is not favoring one religion over another by displaying only crosses, and in my opinion, it would make the memorial site even more meaningful by having all religions represented. Of course, ideally the crosses would never have been placed, but since they are there already, as Diego stated, removing them would cause too much of a controversy and the best solution is allowing other religions to be represented in the memorial site.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Establishment Clause should guarantee a full separation of church and state, but because of situations like this in which the right answer is not crystal clear because one group or another may be offended no matter the outcome, it is difficult to find a solution that would ensure complete separation of church and state. Thus, we must settle on a compromise that is least offensive to the least amount of people; in this case, that is allowing other religions to erect memorials to honor their fallen marines at this site.
Sarah Gissinger
Period 2
I believe The Establishment Clause should represent having separation of church and state but it is vague and it can be interpreted in different ways for different cases.They should be allowed to leave the crosses. The marines are honoring fallen soldiers and we should honor that. Just like if a soldier of another faith died and they wanted to place something to honor him. It doesn't cause any threat or harm, and it should be left alone. I believe that any faith should be represented if they want and nobody should care.
ReplyDeleteBBreAnna Marquez p.2
I believe no matter what is done someone will always be offended. The fact that the memorial is there isn't anything religious its just showing reverence to those who has fallen. With the whole abortion thing, that is unfair for those who support pro choice because that is trying to stop the process and I find that unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteMateu Vilakazi
Period 2
I believe the establishment clause of the first amendment exists in order to ensure the rights of any religion to be freely exercised so that not any one religion can be dominant in our country. Though the purpose of this clause is argued when a cross is erected for a fallen marine on the hill, I think this is a situation that does not pertain to this clause at all. The cross is put up for tradition just as the president closes with "God bless America" or how our currency reads "in God we trust". I don't believe that the intent of this tradition is to make Christianity the dominant religion of the US.
ReplyDelete