Most people are stupid.
Its a fact of life.
This is a discussion on and now a veteran memorial is offensive. within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Disputed Mojave cross honoring US war dead stolen - Yahoo! News the fact that people look at it as a religious symbol as opposed to ...
Disputed Mojave cross honoring US war dead stolen - Yahoo! News
the fact that people look at it as a religious symbol as opposed to the veteran memorial that it is, further enforces my belief that people will whine about anything just because they can for attention or to force their radical beliefs on people.
Last edited by beaker; May 12th, 2010 at 09:40 PM.
Most people are stupid.
Its a fact of life.
I want to have a job where the is no accountability,a job where I can do as I dang well please and make my own laws and act like a KING. I want to be on the Supreme Court.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
When they put it back up they should put a few claymore mines and trip wires around it!
You can educate ignorance, you can't fix stupid
Retired DE Trooper, SA XD40 SC, S&W 2" Airweight
dukalmighty & Pure Kustom Black Ops Pro "Trooper" Holsters, DE CCDW and LEOSA Permits, Vietnam Vet 68-69 Pleiku
Don't tread on me or mine.
I am comfortable laying on a rock in the sun; bothering no one. If you choose to ignore the above statement, you will wish all you had to do, is deal with a snake.
I hope they catch them, and charging them now with defacing a National Monument, theft of federal property, and anything else they can think of.....
I think the VFW needs to put a replacement up.
An enemy of liberty is no friend of mine. I do not owe respect to anyone who would enslave me by government force, nor is it wise for such a person to expect it. -- Isaiah Amberay
Hunt them down and bury them under the cross.
Osculare pultem meam! - Kiss my grits!
It was the ACLU.
"First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand."
Edge of Darkness
As an atheist, the whole debate pisses me off. Many people behind the ACLU are not looking for the separation of church and state, they are looking for abolishment of religion. A memorial with a cross on federal land is NOT the same thing as prayer in public school or having the feds dictate which religion you must follow.
The premise of the separation of church and state is about freedom. It is not about quashing everything you find personally offensive. The ACLU is full of $%^* for taking on a lot of these cases. How are my civil liberties protected by others not having their religion represented? Different people have different faiths. As long as everyone plays nice with their beliefs why is it any of my business what you believe in and any of your business what I believe in?
+2 Well said.
My GLOCK goes BANG every time!
Well the day they tell me (Retired Veteran) here is the day I use Treo's saying "dang if I can remember it now" something to do with flip em and die like a viking or at least I think it's Treo who has that line in his sayings. Sorry, this just torks my jaws.
"I dislike death, however, there are some things I dislike more than death. Therefore, there are times when I will not avoid danger" Mencius"
The lawsuit was started by a transplanted NYer imagine that.
Here is an update:
Anonymous letter explaining cross theft sent to Desert Dispatch | explaining, anonymous, letter - News - Desert Dispatch
BARSTOW • An anonymous caller, claiming to know the details of the theft of the Mojave Cross, contacted the Desert Dispatch newsroom at around 4 p.m. Tuesday. He said he was not directly responsible for the cross’s theft, but knew who was. He told a reporter that the person responsible for the theft wrote up the following explanation and statement regarding the removal of the cross. He asked that the Desert Dispatch to print the statement in its entirety.
We make no claims to the validity of the origins of this statement. We concluded, however, that the short time between the reporting of the cross’s theft and the receipt of this lengthy statement signified at least a strong connection. We are passing along this information in the hopes of illuminating what might have happened:
"1. The cross in question was not vandalized. It was simply moved. This was done lovingly and with great care.
2. The cross has been carefully preserved. It has not been destroyed as many have assumed.
3. I am a Veteran.
4. A small non-sectarian monument was brought to place at the site but technical difficulties prevented this from happening at the time the cross was moved to its new location.
5. The cross was erected illegally on public land in 1998 by a private individual named Henry Sandoz. Since then the government has actively worked to promote the continued existence of the cross, even as it excluded other monuments from differing religions. This favoritism and exclusion clearly violates the establishment clause of the US Constitution.
6. Anthony Kennedy desecrated and marginalized the memory and sacrifice of all those non-Christians that died in WWI when he wrote: 'Here one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles — battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.' The irony and tragedy of that statement is unique.
7. Justice Kennedy’s words in particular and others like them from the other Justices caused me to act.
8. At the time of its removal there was nothing to identify the cross as a memorial of any kind, and the simple fact of the matter is that the only thing it represented was an oddly placed tribute to Christ. This cross evoked nothing of the sort that Justice Kennedy writes of, it was in the end simply a cross in the desert.
9. Discrimination in any form is intolerable, as is hatred.
10. Discrimination or hatred based upon religion should be despised by all Americans, and offering that this event was caused by hatred or malice is simply ignorance of the actual intent.
11. Despite what many people are saying, this act was definitively not anti-Christian. It was instead anti-discrimination. If this act was anti-Christian, the cross would not have been cared for so reverently. An anti-Christian response would have been to simply destroy the cross and leave the pieces in the desert.
12. We as a nation need to change the dialogue and stop pretending that this is about a war memorial. If it is a memorial, then we need to stop arguing about the cross and instead place a proper memorial on that site, one that respects Christians and non-Christians alike, and one that is actually recognizable as a war memorial.
13. If an appropriate and permanent non-sectarian memorial is placed at the site the cross will be immediately returned to Mr. Sandoz.
14. Alternatively, if a place can be found that memorializes the Christian Veterans of WWI that is not on public land the Cross will promptly be forwarded with care and reverence for installation at the private site.
15. In short this has happened because as Abraham Lincoln said: 'To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men.' Perhaps this was an inappropriate form of protest if so I humbly request your forgiveness and understanding for the actions that I have taken here."
So...they didn't like the ruling they wanted....committed a crime (theft) and expect nothing to happen to them?
Magazine <> clip - know the difference
martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know