Army symbol is religious and should be changed

A military religious "censorship" group is trying to get a cross removed from a military emblem on an army hospital in Denver.
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fort_carson_cross

Why is it okay to censor religious symbols, but not okay to censor the sexually provocative books and materials in our libraries or sexually provocative commercials on tv?

Because there are some people who seek out reasons to be offended.

No one's saying it's okay to just censor religious symbols. A military endorsing one religion is a violation of the constitution. It does not take away anyone's freedom to religion.

Imagine if it was sporting Pagan symbolism instead of Christian, would you support it than?

[quote="Galnextdoor, post:1, topic:196689"]
A military religious "censorship" group is trying to get a cross removed from a military emblem on an army hospital in Denver.
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fort_carson_cross

Why is it okay to censor religious symbols, but not okay to censor the sexually provocative books and materials in our libraries or sexually provocative commercials on tv?

[/quote]

They should be censored!:(

[quote="Hobble, post:3, topic:196689"]
No one's saying it's okay to just censor religious symbols. A military endorsing one religion is a violation of the constitution. It does not take away anyone's freedom to religion.

Imagine if it was sporting Pagan symbolism instead of Christian, would you support it than?

I'm not sure what your point about sex has to do with any of this. If there were government endorsed pornography playing in the hospitals rooms that would be a different story, but there isn't.

[/quote]

Or Hugo Chaves!:D

Edit to my point about pornography, I didn't notice you were talking about libraries. That matter is completely unrelated though, I think it's against forum rules to use a news article to insight discussion about something unrelated. However what's sexual provocative is different to many, some feel it's provocative once there's cleavage, some if you can even see a woman's face, how do choose which guidelines to go by?. Should we limit the rights of people to choose what they even see?

As for books, that's just ridiculous.

Anyways, back on topic. The government should not endorse a religion, that violates freedom to religion and separation of church and state. Don't act like you're being persecuted, that's just overly dramatic.

[quote="Hobble, post:6, topic:196689"]
Edit to my point about pornography, I didn't notice you were talking about libraries. That matter is completely unrelated though, I think it's against forum rules to use a news article to insight discussion about something unrelated. However what's sexual provocative is different to many, some feel it's provocative once there's cleavage, some if you can even see a woman's face, how do choose which guidelines to go by?. Should we limit the rights of people to choose what they even see?

As for books, that's just ridiculous.

Anyways, back on topic. The government should not endorse a religion, that violates freedom to religion and separation of church and state. Don't act like you're being persecuted, that's just overly dramatic.

[/quote]

Removing a cross from an army hospital emblem is censorship. I worked in a library supported by tax money that carried Playboy. The director said that removing Playboy from the library shelves was censorship. Whenever someone decides what another person can see or hear, a form of censorship is taking place. Unfortunately, in our culture, religion is the only thing being censored.

[quote="Galnextdoor, post:7, topic:196689"]
Removing a cross from an army hospital emblem is censorship. I worked in a library supported by tax money that carried Playboy. The director said that removing Playboy from the library shelves was censorship. Whenever someone decides what another person can see or hear, a form of censorship is taking place. Unfortunately, in our culture, religion is the only thing being censored.

[/quote]

There's no law that states a separation of sexuality and state, the reason is that sexuality is not as dangerous as religion when supported by a government. Just open a history book, or look at the middle east, to see what happens when there is no separation of church and state.

I still want someone to answer my question. If the hospital was sporting Pagan symbols, would you still be defending it?

[quote="Hobble, post:8, topic:196689"]
There's no law that states a separation of sexuality and state, the reason is that sexuality is not as dangerous as religion when supported by a government. Just open a history book, or look at the middle east, to see what happens when there is no separation of church and state.

I still want someone to answer my question. If the hospital was sporting Pagan symbols, would you still be defending it?

[/quote]

Actually, there is no law that states anything about a separation of church and state. The constitution states that the government shall not have a religion. If the army emblem had Greek gods or Roman gods, I wouldn't care. If it had symbols of other religions, I wouldn't care, as long as there were crosses as well.

You completely misunderstand what I am saying. I am talking about censorship. The only thing that is censored in the U.S. anymore is religion.

I get what you're saying. But the military is a part of the government, if the military is endorsing a single religion that it's the government that is endorsing that religion.

I don't see how religion is the only thing that's censored. I'd say freedom of press is censored in America more than religion. You have In God We Trust on your money. even recently when the national day of prayer was ruled as unconstitutional, the white house appealed that ruling.

Knowing this site, I highly doubt that many would be alright with any other religions symbols being on a government facility.

The US Supreme Court just ruled that a cross on federal land, representing slain military members in World War I, is constitutional.
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/28/AR2010042801949.html

I would guess that the cross on the army hospital will be upheld for much the same reason. The cross is not seen as religious, but as a symbol of healing or of sacrifice.

That is awesome!

The hospital is in Colorado Springs at Ft. Carson.

UNIT CREST DISTINCTIVE BADGE FOR THE U.S. ARMY MEDICAL

DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY, FORT CARSON, COLORADO

  1. The Distinctive badge that was originally approved for the
    U.S. Army Hospital, Fort Carson, Colorado, 6 August 1969, is
    redesignated for the U.S. Army Medical Department Activity, Fort
    Carson.
  2. The description and symbolism of the badge are as follows:
    DESCRIPTION
    A silver color metal and enamel insignia 1 3/16 inches in height consisting of a range of three white mountain peaks surmounted by a maroon cross with pointed base, all within and in front of an encircling maroon scroll, the upper part inscribed “Pro Deo” and the lower part “Et Humanitate” in silver letters.
    SYMBOLISM
    The range of mountain peaks symbolizes wisdom and strength; it represents the Rocky Mountains at the foot of which the U.S. Army Medical Activity at Fort Carson is located. In addition, the mountain peaks simulate Indian tepees and allude to the historical background of the area around Fort Carson, which was named for the famed Indian scout, “Kit” Carson. The maroon cross, emblem of mercy, service and physical care, stands for the Medical Activity. The base of the cross is pointed or “fitche”, a heraldic term, which had its origin in the spike attached to the foot of the cross, carried by pilgrims during the Middle Ages. The spike was struck into the ground, fixing the cross in an upright position to mark the location selected for encampment. Maroon and white are the colors used for organizations of the Army Medical Department
    evans.amedd.army.mil/cmdste/unit_crest_history.htm

The hospital is named after a medal of honor winner:

Specialist Four Donald W. Evans, Jr., a member of Company A, 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry, 4th Infantry Division. Specialist Evans was awarded the Medal of Honor for action at Tri Tam, Republic of Vietnam, where he gave his life while administering medical aid to his fellow soldiers.

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. He left his position of relative safety with his platoon which had not yet been committed to the battle to answer the calls for medical aid from the wounded men of another platoon which was heavily engaged with the enemy force. Dashing across 100 meters of open area through a withering hail of enemy fire and exploding grenades, he administered lifesaving treatment to 1 individual and continued to expose himself to the deadly enemy fire as he moved to treat each of the other wounded men and to offer them encouragement. Realizing that the wounds of 1 man required immediate attention, Sp4c. Evans dragged the injured soldier back across the dangerous fire-swept area, to a secure position from which he could be further evacuated. Miraculously escaping the enemy fusillade, Sp4c. Evans returned to the forward location. As he continued the treatment of the wounded, he was struck by fragments from an enemy grenade. Despite his serious and painful injury he succeeded in evacuating another wounded comrade, rejoined his platoon as it was committed to battle and was soon treating other wounded soldiers. As he evacuated another wounded man across the fire covered field, he was severely wounded. Continuing to refuse medical attention and ignoring advice to remain behind, he managed with his waning strength to move yet another wounded comrade across the dangerous open area to safety. Disregarding his painful wounds and seriously weakened from profuse bleeding, he continued his lifesaving medical aid and was killed while treating another wounded comrade. Sp4c. Evan’s extraordinary valor, dedication and indomitable spirit saved the lives of several of his fellow soldiers, served as an inspiration to the men of his company, were instrumental in the success of their mission, and reflect great credit upon himself and the Armed Forces of his country.

http://www.mishalov.com/images/evansd.jpg mishalov.com/EvansDonald.html

Did the courts just unpack a new Constitution? Did a new interpretation descend on angel's wings? Why were many of these things ok for years and now they're not ok? Were previous judges just stupid? Now we finally have some intelligent judges who can now connect the dots?

Perhaps if intelligent judges had been available a hundred years ago, this could all have been settled back then. We would now be living in a world devoid of any pesky religious influence. It would be an interesting thought experiment to wonder what public discourse would be like now, 100 years after moral judgments became the soul territory of the utilitarian consensus of men.

Be careful what you wish for.

What are you talking about? The constitution clearly states separation of church and state, the military is a government force. No one is talking about taking away anyone’s freedom to religion.

And for your other point, our morals have always come from our own consensus. Even Christians have never and still don’t fully follow the morals outlined in scripture, I doubt that you support slavery. People who follow scripture these days tend to hold morals in spite of the bible, not because of it, they pick and choose which teachings to follow and ignore ones that are immoral. Even the teachings that got into the bible were nit picked by the early church, they cut out dozens of gospels and some were even destroyed. If you want to see what happens when scripture runs society, just look back to the days when the church had more power, it wasn’t a good thing at all.So sorry that your church can’t execute anyone that they want anymore, but some of us consider that a good thing.

[quote="a_priori, post:14, topic:196689"]
Did the courts just unpack a new Constitution? Did a new interpretation descend on angel's wings? Why were many of these things ok for years and now they're not ok? Were previous judges just stupid? Now we finally have some intelligent judges who can now connect the dots?

Perhaps if intelligent judges had been available a hundred years ago, this could all have been settled back then. We would now be living in a world devoid of any pesky religious influence. It would be an interesting thought experiment to wonder what public discourse would be like now, 100 years after moral judgments became the soul territory of the utilitarian consensus of men.

Be careful what you wish for.

[/quote]

LIBERALS!—are not the same nice I want help people liberals I grew up with. Today most of them hate the United States especially Christians and of Christians they think the Catholic Church is the most evil—they are in the devils camp.

[quote="Hobble, post:15, topic:196689"]
What are you talking about? The constitution clearly states separation of church and state, the military is a government force. No one is talking about taking away anyone's freedom to religion.

And for your other point, our morals have always come from our own consensus. Even Christians have never and still don't fully follow the morals outlined in scripture, I doubt that you support slavery. People who follow scripture these days tend to hold morals in spite of the bible, not because of it, they pick and choose which teachings to follow and ignore ones that are immoral. Even the teachings that got into the bible were nit picked by the early church, they cut out dozens of gospels and some were even destroyed. If you want to see what happens when scripture runs society, just look back to the days when the church had more power, it wasn't a good thing at all.

[/quote]

Any society that is run by religious zealots of any stripe, Christian or otherwise, are not places anyone would want to live. The key here is to strike a balance. However, when God is completely removed from political life, historically you have gotten the guillotine or the gulag.

BTW, your assertion that the "Constitution clearly states separation of Church and state" was apparently lost on the American judiciary for a couple hundred years. I say again, either they were abjectly stupid, or your presuppositions are faulty.

[quote="stanmaxkolbe, post:16, topic:196689"]
LIBERALS!—are not the same nice I want help people liberals I grew up with. Today most of them hate the United States especially Christians and of Christians they think the Catholic Church is the most evil—they are in the devils camp.

[/quote]

Again with the us vs them mentality that's so common here. Many of the churches most outspoken opponents are not liberal, I'm not a liberal either.

Prove that the church is a force for good. A history book, and even current affairs can quickly debunk such a claim. If any non-religious organization had committed the amount of crimes that the church has it would not be stood for, especially not for as long as the church has been around.

[quote="Hobble, post:15, topic:196689"]
So sorry that your church can't execute anyone that they want anymore, but some of us consider that a good thing.

[/quote]

Sorry, I lost my cool. Regardless of what anyone though 100 years ago, I don’t feel it’s right to include religious symbolism on a government facility, especially a pointed cross like that which is a reference to the crusades.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.