• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

National Cemetery's and the 1st Amendment

Remove religious headstones from National Cemetery's?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 11 91.7%
  • Otehr

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • Total voters
    12

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
National Cemetery's are federal property. Most National Cemetery's have numerous headstones with crosses or Stars of David on them. Simple question. Seeing as how the National Cemetery's are federal property, should all headstones bearing any sort of religious symbols be removed citing the 1st Amendment?
 
National Cemetery's are federal property. Most National Cemetery's have numerous headstones with crosses or Stars of David on them. Simple question. Seeing as how the National Cemetery's are federal property, should all headstones bearing any sort of religious symbols be removed citing the 1st Amendment?

Why open a can of worms that hasn't been opened yet? I voted no but I do understand either side of the argument.
 
National Cemetery's are federal property. Most National Cemetery's have numerous headstones with crosses or Stars of David on them. Simple question. Seeing as how the National Cemetery's are federal property, should all headstones bearing any sort of religious symbols be removed citing the 1st Amendment?

No, because it is not the government who is professing their religious opinion in that case. It is the deceased, and/or their family, and it falls under their first amendment rights. Military members in general are also free to express their religious beliefs while alive, so there's no reason they shouldn't be when they die.
 
No, because it is not the government who is professing their religious opinion in that case. It is the deceased, and/or their family, and it falls under their first amendment rights. Military members in general are also free to express their religious beliefs while alive, so there's no reason they shouldn't be when they die.
But it's on gov't property and the military member is no longer alive to express their feelings. This is a landmark or symbol that is being posted on gov't property with no living military member actively engaging in the practice of his/her religion.
 
But it's on gov't property and the military member is no longer alive to express their feelings. This is a landmark or symbol that is being posted on gov't property with no living military member actively engaging in the practice of his/her religion.

Let it go.
 
But it's on gov't property and the military member is no longer alive to express their feelings. This is a landmark or symbol that is being posted on gov't property with no living military member actively engaging in the practice of his/her religion.

It doesn't matter. It isn't a statement being made by the government, nor is a cemetery or a grave stone subject to most of the placement regulations that apply to, say, a government building. Living family is the one making that expression. I am not aware of any clause stating that any remaining physical symbolism of one's religious beliefs must be destroyed upon death, regardless of where they wind up.
 
Let it go.

In Jacksonville, North Carolina there is a National Cemetery. The front part of the cemetary is not service members. It is for the displaced graves of people who had a final resting place on the property that is currently Camp Lejeune. Some of those graves were of Confederate Soldiers and bear the flag of rebellion. These Confederate flags will probably be removed long before they ever start discussing removing crosses and the star of David. I don't see either of them ever being removed.

This is an interesting argument but I think as a nation we still have a tradition of showing respect for the dead and not making it out into a political spectacle. Maybe in a few generations this could change and the crosses can be removed. I just don't think this subject is ripe for debate.

As I said with my first post
Why open a can of worms that hasn't been opened yet?
 
National Cemetery's are federal property. Most National Cemetery's have numerous headstones with crosses or Stars of David on them. Simple question. Seeing as how the National Cemetery's are federal property, should all headstones bearing any sort of religious symbols be removed citing the 1st Amendment?

True. What do you propose? You want to take the Star of David away from the Jewish boys that are buried in the World War II cemeteries? You could allow everyone to put up whatever they wanted for their beloved. It would look less impressive probably. It also would not totally solve the problem.
 
National Cemetery's are federal property. Most National Cemetery's have numerous headstones with crosses or Stars of David on them. Simple question. Seeing as how the National Cemetery's are federal property, should all headstones bearing any sort of religious symbols be removed citing the 1st Amendment?

The first amendment says the government may not prohibit or respect the establishment of religion.Meaning the government must allow the exercise of religion while at the same time not favoring one religion over another.So as long as no religious symbols are excluded then it is okay for there to be star of Davids and crosses on headstones.
 
I believe this has already been addressed legally and it is deemed a memorial to the individual, not a government "endorsement", hence it's ok.

I do not have a link.
 
I think this is a good illustration that people don't really grasp the separation of church and state issue. It doesn't mean the removal of all religious symbolism from federal property.
 
No. The tombstones are sporting the individual religions of the people that died in the line of duty. Whether or not the tombstone is federal property or not is beyond the point. The government is not forcing a soldier into a certain religion, they are remembering with their religion, which differs from soldier to soldier.
 
Let it go.

It doesn't matter. It isn't a statement being made by the government, nor is a cemetery or a grave stone subject to most of the placement regulations that apply to, say, a government building. Living family is the one making that expression. I am not aware of any clause stating that any remaining physical symbolism of one's religious beliefs must be destroyed upon death, regardless of where they wind up.

True. What do you propose? You want to take the Star of David away from the Jewish boys that are buried in the World War II cemeteries? You could allow everyone to put up whatever they wanted for their beloved. It would look less impressive probably. It also would not totally solve the problem.

The first amendment says the government may not prohibit or respect the establishment of religion.Meaning the government must allow the exercise of religion while at the same time not favoring one religion over another.So as long as no religious symbols are excluded then it is okay for there to be star of Davids and crosses on headstones.

I believe this has already been addressed legally and it is deemed a memorial to the individual, not a government "endorsement", hence it's ok.

I do not have a link.

I think this is a good illustration that people don't really grasp the separation of church and state issue. It doesn't mean the removal of all religious symbolism from federal property.

No. The tombstones are sporting the individual religions of the people that died in the line of duty. Whether or not the tombstone is federal property or not is beyond the point. The government is not forcing a soldier into a certain religion, they are remembering with their religion, which differs from soldier to soldier.
To be clear, I agree that the crosses and Stars of David should be left in place. The entire reason I posted this was due to this thread:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ers-landmark-california-cross-taken-down.html
I wanted to show the line that we are fast approaching with these ridiculous court cases about religious symbols. Religious symbols are just that, religious. They are not an endorsement by the gov't of a particular religion or faith. They are an expression of faith by the individuals that erect the symbol, whatever it may be.
 
To be clear, I agree that the crosses and Stars of David should be left in place. The entire reason I posted this was due to this thread:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ers-landmark-california-cross-taken-down.html
I wanted to show the line that we are fast approaching with these ridiculous court cases about religious symbols. Religious symbols are just that, religious. They are not an endorsement by the gov't of a particular religion or faith. They are an expression of faith by the individuals that erect the symbol, whatever it may be.

Your question isn't comparable to the case linked, at all. In the cases being discussed in this thread, the family decided what to display on the grave site. In the case linked above, the government decided to incorporate religious symbols into a monument that it designed.

I mean, we can certain debate whether such a memorial is the most important thing someone could be bringing to court, but the difference between these two things is clear.
 
Your question isn't comparable to the case linked, at all. In the cases being discussed in this thread, the family decided what to display on the grave site. In the case linked above, the government decided to incorporate religious symbols into a monument that it designed.

I mean, we can certain debate whether such a memorial is the most important thing someone could be bringing to court, but the difference between these two things is clear.
I see the correlation personally. My reasoning behind that is that both are memorials to dead service members. Both were put there by the families of those dead service members. Both are symbols that were chosen to best represent the feelings of the families. I do see your point that one is for an individual and one is for a group of individuals. However, I think they do have some similarities.
 
What other religions are allowed. I read the Buddhist symbol is. What about Islam?
 
In Jacksonville, North Carolina there is a National Cemetery. The front part of the cemetary is not service members. It is for the displaced graves of people who had a final resting place on the property that is currently Camp Lejeune. Some of those graves were of Confederate Soldiers and bear the flag of rebellion. These Confederate flags will probably be removed long before they ever start discussing removing crosses and the star of David. I don't see either of them ever being removed.

This is an interesting argument but I think as a nation we still have a tradition of showing respect for the dead and not making it out into a political spectacle. Maybe in a few generations this could change and the crosses can be removed. I just don't think this subject is ripe for debate.

As I said with my first post

I believe the issue concerning Confederates was those Confederates that died in Union prisoner of war camps, for which later Congress authorized headstones for them since they died in Union/government care and had been uniformed officers.
 
Any individual can express their religious affiliation on their own gravestone, even a dead soldier in a government owned cemetery. But in the case of a soldier who did not express such a preference, the government cannot express some religious affiliation for them. If a soldier does not ask for a religious-oriented symbol in life, or their family does not ask for one on their behalf (which is somewhat sketchy... suppose the family and the soldier have different religious beliefs), then a non-religious grave marker must be the default.
 
I see the correlation personally. My reasoning behind that is that both are memorials to dead service members. Both were put there by the families of those dead service members. Both are symbols that were chosen to best represent the feelings of the families. I do see your point that one is for an individual and one is for a group of individuals. However, I think they do have some similarities.

Well... no. I mean, one of the defendants is the Obama administration itself. The other is some kind of historical association that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the families. This is not "a group of families" that did this, and the government doesn't have a right to tell families how they feel.
 
Well... no. I mean, one of the defendants is the Obama administration itself. The other is some kind of historical association that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the families. This is not "a group of families" that did this, and the government doesn't have a right to tell families how they feel.
I'm making an assumption there. I would think (hope) this association would have had some sort of interaction with the families of those particular service members prior to erecting the monument. I see your pov on the distinction though and agree. It is a very different case in that the parties involved have dissimilar motives I'm sure.
 
Back
Top Bottom