Friday, October 9, 2009

Crosses on Public Lands

Crosses on Public Lands
First of all I read this story from an email I get from Focus on The Family.

It reads:
Eight years ago, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of Frank Buono claiming that the
memorial — which was on public land — should be altered or removed since it only
represented Christian soldiers and excluded soldiers of other faiths. "This is a stand-
alone cross," said Peter Eliasberg, an ACLU lawyer. "The cross is the predominant
symbol of Christianity, and it should not be treated as though it is the single, favored
religious symbol."

Responding to the argument, Justice Antonin Scalia said that "the cross is the most
common symbol to honor the war dead," calling it an "outrageous conclusion to say the
cross is limited to honoring only soldiers who were Christians."

The land on which the cross stands was recently transferred from the national preserve
to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, but the Supreme Court justices are debating this week
whether that solves the issue or if they need to go further back and decide if it was
constitutional to erect the cross on public land originally.
I am concerned and confused about this one issue that is so offensive to one person from one state about a cross that appears in another state. He files suit, through the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an organization that many would call liberal, because he is offended by the cross. He doesn't like it. He says that this cross that has been given to honor the military dead and erected so many years ago, has offended him because it is on public land that is owned by the American citizens.
So when did we get to the place that just because we are offended we sue someone. Seems like I get offended every time I wait in line somewhere and overhear someone saying phrases, terms, ugly words, profanity, and even derogatory statements. I don't sue over it just because I am offended; give me a break. This is a slippery slope that we must not continue down.
I am concerned not because he is offended by the cross as the cross has been offending people for centuries. The cross IS offensive and it has been causing people to try to eradicate it for years and years and years. People try to stamp it out for what it stands for: sacrifices that can change them, their thoughts, their very souls forever. Kill or be killed I guess is the mind set that they govern their hatred of the cross by.
So here is MY logic on this cross issue on public lands. My father that raised me was a veteran of WWII and of the Korean Conflict. He was a purple heart recipient from being wounded and pinned down somewhere in Germany. He was reactivated for Korea and saw the worse of the worse as he was in and on the front lines shooting at the enemy and the enemy shooting back at him. Many of the men he fought with did not survive and they are buried in foreign lands and you can see hundreds and hundreds of crosses in the cemeteries marking the graves of the brave soldiers.
"Arlington National Cemetery" has thousands of graves of the fallen and deceased and many, yes thousands of markers, have crosses on them. There are hundreds of regional cemeteries where many of the war dead are buried and there are crosses once again all over the place. All of these not only mark graves of individuals but heroes as well. The crosses are all over the place.
Now here is the rub. IF the Supreme Court of the United States says that the cross cannot be on public land, what do we do about the cemeteries and the cross?
The cross is still a symbol for a sacrifice that is beyond measure. Think about the men and women who lie buried in the public lands, tax payers' lands with crosses proudly posted. I think it is OK to display the crosses because of the sacrifice that was given by the fallen and those that served with pride.
Well that's my thoughts on this issue of the Crosses on Public Lands.

No comments: