Posted: Apr 12, 2012 11:49 pm
willhud9 wrote:orpheus wrote:willhud9 wrote::facepalm:
Who cares? I get it, it may not be 100% legal. I give you that. But really? Let me ask this one question: why does it bother anyone?
Because it's 100% illegal. And it's an important issue. And ruling that it's ok would set a precedent. And it's a contentious issue, so such a precedent would be dangerous.
Why is it illegal? Because some people get offended and outraged at a symbol used in western culture as a sign of memorial as well as a religion? It does not establish religion, prevent another religion from erecting a memorial, or prevent someone from worshiping whatever they believe on the base. It was created as a memorial for lost ones. From the article it doesn't even sound like the crosses are blatantly in any one's way or are even funded and cared for by US taxpayers, but rather a small private party of soldiers and soldier wives. 3,000 foot hike up the mountain. I could see if this was the marine base itself erecting this, I could see if this was US taxpayer money doing this, but the only major thing is this is "on" a military base. So I guess the establishment clause beats out the free exercise clause for some reason? This is not government sponsored so it cannot be the establishment clause.
In which case crosses should be allowed to decorate public courthouses or schools as long as they are paid for by private citizens?