Jesus Camp

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:14 am

(SMUT AND CONCUPISCENCE UBER ALLES!):wah:

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:07 am

Pinky wrote: Hi Lulu! *waves*

IMO, religion is a personal thing, I don't try to foist it on anyone else and I do what I can when I can. Can you imagine if I tried to impose my supposed right to run around in the forest in the nuddy at Beltane?

Hehe, it may be a way to very quick celebrity though!:D

You can't keep a good pagan down.

http://heritage.scotsman.com/topics.cfm ... =495712003

Crowds turn out for banned Beltane festival

The result? It's more popular than ever.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 6:03 pm

The Beltane stories sound like great fun, actually! Just curious--is there much comment from local churches about this?

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:01 am

Diuretic wrote: Serious question - if somewhat provocative - why should anyone expect that anyone else should respect their religious beliefs? I'm not arguing that anyone should be prohibited from practising their religion (provided such practising doesn't breach secular laws) but why should anyone expect, almost automatically, that their religious beliefs should be respected?

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. That's why I have to take issue when secularists criticize religious people for not respecting other religions. Why should they? But as you said, you can respect someone's right to believe as they wish without respecting their actual belief system. However, there's no reason to think courtesy and politeness can't rule the day.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:09 am

It also seems you can't talk to christians about christian fundamantalists without being accused of condemning all christians.

Sure you can. It happens every day. But if you are going to claim that they are just as dangerous as murderous suicide bombers, it would help if you could provide substantial concrete evidence rather than basing such opinions on your dislike for their particular theology. Jesus Camp? Are you really scared of Jesus Camp? I've never been to Jesus Camp, but I'm pretty familiar with the basic ideas and I'm familiar with the Becky Fischer types. I'm just telling you from personal experience that this film and this thread is getting worked up over nothing, that is, if this really frightens you.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:20 am

Yavanna wrote: My view is really simple. No one has the right to have their beliefs and views respected if respected means "unchallenged, uncriticised and occasionally mocked".

I have the right to think and say what I like about other religions, as other people have the right to do so about mine. After all, not one single solitary soul on this planet knows what life and death is about ; we may choose to believe certain ideologies - but we're equally as ignorant of the "truth" (supposing there is one truth) as each other.

Even if someone were to gratuituously slate my religion, so what? Does it injure me bodily, mentally, emotionally ? Harm my property? Make me doubt myself? Cause me to want to hurt them in return?

Nope. It just makes me shrug and say "So what?" An opinion is an opinion - no more or less.

That's a great attitude to have. Do you think anyone has the right to demand their sexual orientation or ethnicity be respected or should they expect to be challenged and mocked? Is Bible thumper okay while spear-chucker is not? Is it necessary to insult and denigrate while presenting your point of view? If I entered a thread about reincarnation and rather than politely present my views that I don't believe in it, I ridiculed those that do as being brainwashed, irrational, back-woods uneducated hicks, terrorists, a scourge on society, etc etc etc. Instead, I politely let them believe as they wish and don't rain on their parade. I believe that's a characteristic of tolerance. If I did give my views, I certainly would be polite about it and simple say I don't buy it personally but to each his own. If I made a thread after the Foley scandal about homosexual pederasts and said they were the greatest danger to children in America, do you think some of our gay members might get offended at my opinion. Might they assume I am disparaging all homosexuals in a subtle way? That's all I'm saying. I'm just trying to understand the groundrules at forums like this one.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:37 am

gmc wrote: You can't keep a good pagan down.

http://heritage.scotsman.com/topics.cfm ... =495712003

The result? It's more popular than ever.

i am impressed by your lack of need for viagra my friend but what the hell has that got to do with this post for pete's

jesus camp ........... i thought he was a mild gentle guy but this goes too far

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:40 am

Adam Zapple wrote: Sure you can. It happens every day. But if you are going to claim that they are just as dangerous as murderous suicide bombers, it would help if you could provide substantial concrete evidence rather than basing such opinions on your dislike for their particular theology. Jesus Camp? Are you really scared of Jesus Camp? I've never been to Jesus Camp, but I'm pretty familiar with the basic ideas and I'm familiar with the Becky Fischer types. I'm just telling you from personal experience that this film and this thread is getting worked up over nothing, that is, if this really frightens you.

It's the same kind of mentality. Islamic fundamentalists were not dangerous and just a lunatic fringe until they started taking action and getting more and more support. When they get control of a country then life is hellish for anyone that does not conform.

Christian fundamentalists are just as capable of atrocities in the name of their religon as anybody else. currently they are not doing anything but you just have to look back at the religiouis wars between catholic and protestant to see where religious fervour can lead and whart kind of horror can be imposed on those who their god deems heretical. Christian fundamentalists are not dangerous if they do not have political power, if they get it then the US will not be a pleasant place to live. Christians that blow up abortion clinics and kill doctors and nurses are just as much a terrorist as any islamic fundamentalists whatevr their motive.

They are dangerous imo if they manage to convince people that the war on terror is also some kind of holy crusade against an evil religon called islam and that the only reason for terrorism is because the people are evil. Calling something evil is a way of stopping people thinking more deeply about things and looking for reasons behind what happens.

Jesus camp I haven't seen but i dare say it might get a showing on british TV at some point-doubt very much if i would pay to see it at a cinema.

Christian fundamentalist like becky fisher(?) or Pat Robertson are very much an american phenomenon. It's something I don't understand and as an outsider intriques me. That kind of religious extremism just doesn't get very far in the UK, people are not that ready to follow blindly without question, even the moonies gave up, and sectarianism very soon clouds the issue, . We just have to look at Northern ireland to see where sectarianism leads and most people just live and let live.

One thing that very seldom comes up in normal conversation is someones religon, it's just not brought up in polite company.

The only reason it would worry me is if some religious nutter was in the white house and god told him to destroy the unbelievers.

Most of the christian fundamentalists seem to be protestant denominations, maybe with all the catholics coming in from south america you might see sectarian warfare in the US. Who knows?

We had centuries of religious warfare and at one point christian fundamentalists got control. I have seen it suggested that a horror of ever having it again is burned in to the British psyche and that is why extremism of any kind tends to get such little support. How valid a theory it is I wouldn't like to say.

We also have a long tradition of poking fun at politicians, the establishment, religon all get mercilessly lampooned and the christian right make good targets, at least they don't threaten to blow up the cartoonists.

posted by jimbo

i am impressed by your lack of need for viagra my friend but what the hell has that got to do with this post for pete's

jesus camp ........... i thought he was a mild gentle guy but this goes too far

I agree with you there. Why mention viagra?

posted by Lulu2

The Beltane stories sound like great fun, actually! Just curious--is there much comment from local churches about this?

What do you think was behind getting it banned-the tut tutting brigade are always with us.

Realistically most of them appreciate it is not a pagan revival but just an excuse for a good party. They also realise that if they tried to ban it the resulting publicity would make it even more popular and people would turn out in their thousands to make clear that the church has no business interfering.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:55 am

Lulu2 wrote: Yes, that's the ideal, isn't it? However, some minister from a New Light Christian Church is shown discussing how Evangelicals can create a bloc vote and put their views into the Supreme Court. That's religion mixing in politics, folks.....Not that I support it (I don't), but how is that different from any other activist group?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:18 am

Because religion is "sacred" and has no place in politics. It's exclusive, rather than inclusive because it seeks to impose its own theology, rather than its own political system/environmental agenda.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:47 pm

Lulu2 wrote: Because religion is "sacred" and has no place in politics. It's exclusive, rather than inclusive because it seeks to impose its own theology, rather than its own political system/environmental agenda.Semantics. There's no difference in them, Republicrats, or political action groups.

Name something they publicly are trying to "impose" on you that both Republicrats and Demicans would oppose.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:59 am

Accountable wrote: Semantics. There's no difference in them, Republicrats, or political action groups.

Name something they publicly are trying to "impose" on you that both Republicrats and Demicans would oppose.

For an example of atheists trying to impose thier belief system on us, look no further than the Soledad Cross controversy. Are they as dangerous as the Taliban, too?

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:31 am

gmc wrote: It's the same kind of mentality. Islamic fundamentalists were not dangerous and just a lunatic fringe until they started taking action and getting more and more support. When they get control of a country then life is hellish for anyone that does not conform.

Christian fundamentalists are just as capable of atrocities in the name of their religon as anybody else. currently they are not doing anything but you just have to look back at the religiouis wars between catholic and protestant to see where religious fervour can lead and whart kind of horror can be imposed on those who their god deems heretical. Christian fundamentalists are not dangerous if they do not have political power, if they get it then the US will not be a pleasant place to live. Christians that blow up abortion clinics and kill doctors and nurses are just as much a terrorist as any islamic fundamentalists whatevr their motive.

They are dangerous imo if they manage to convince people that the war on terror is also some kind of holy crusade against an evil religon called islam and that the only reason for terrorism is because the people are evil. Calling something evil is a way of stopping people thinking more deeply about things and looking for reasons behind what happens.

Jesus camp I haven't seen but i dare say it might get a showing on british TV at some point-doubt very much if i would pay to see it at a cinema.

Christian fundamentalist like becky fisher(?) or Pat Robertson are very much an american phenomenon. It's something I don't understand and as an outsider intriques me. That kind of religious extremism just doesn't get very far in the UK, people are not that ready to follow blindly without question, even the moonies gave up, and sectarianism very soon clouds the issue, . We just have to look at Northern ireland to see where sectarianism leads and most people just live and let live.

One thing that very seldom comes up in normal conversation is someones religon, it's just not brought up in polite company.

The only reason it would worry me is if some religious nutter was in the white house and god told him to destroy the unbelievers.

Most of the christian fundamentalists seem to be protestant denominations, maybe with all the catholics coming in from south america you might see sectarian warfare in the US. Who knows?

We had centuries of religious warfare and at one point christian fundamentalists got control. I have seen it suggested that a horror of ever having it again is burned in to the British psyche and that is why extremism of any kind tends to get such little support. How valid a theory it is I wouldn't like to say.

We also have a long tradition of poking fun at politicians, the establishment, religon all get mercilessly lampooned and the christian right make good targets, at least they don't threaten to blow up the cartoonists.

You're condemning a whole subset of the population based on suppositions. It's as irrational as saying "If homosexuals gain political power, we'll become another Sodom and Gomorrah and they'll make us all turn gay!" Any group, any group is capable of anything I suppose but one really has to be rational. Is Stalin and Pol Pot an example of what America would be like if atheists gained political power? Certainly they are capable of committing atrocities. What if Al Gore becomes President and floods government offices with greenies. They are certainly capable of atrocities. Extreme environmental groups commit terrorist acts all the time. What if, what if, what if........

gmc wrote: Christians that blow up abortion clinics and kill doctors and nurses are just as much a terrorist as any islamic fundamentalists whatevr their motive.

Absolutely. But every mainstream Christian group has condemned these acts. They don't promote them from the pulpit. The groups that do promote these acts are very few and they are either cults or groups not related to any particular religious church or affiliation. In no way do I support, condone, or defend those pro-life groups that engage in harassing and violent means. Their actions are anathema to me. But the facts are that since 1977, 7 people have been killed in abortion clinic violence. Seven people in 29 years is seven too many but hardly the crisis that many make it seem.

1993: David Gunn murdered Micheal Griffin. Gunn is serving a life sentence.

1994: Paul Hill killed Dr. Britton and a security guard. He was executed for his crime.

1995: John Salvi killed two women. He was sentenced to two life terms but committed suicide in prison.

1998: A guard was killed in a bombing committed by Eric Rudolph. He is in custody.

1998: Dr. Sleppian was murdered by James Kopp who was given the maximum penalty. Most abortion violence is committed by one group, The Army of God, which is so underground even its own members have no contact with one another. Hardly the pro-life cabal we read about in the press.

There have also been 17 attempted murders in those 26 years. Again, 17 too many but apparently it's safer to be in an abortion clinic than on the street or in school even (unless you are an unborn baby - over 40 million babies have died in that time frame). Paul Hill, executed for killing a doctor, was thrown out of several pro-life organizations because of his extreme views just as Fred Phelps of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church was thrown out of the Baptist denomination because of his. Read the Wikipedia entry on Phelps and also on the Westboro Baptist Church; it is very informative. These people are not in any way associated with mainstream fundamental or evangelical denominations. So it would be unfortunate to paint peaceful people with guilt by association. Let's not forget that environmental activist Ted Kacynski, aka the Unibomber, also murdered people and environmental groups have injured or killed loggers for years by spiking trees. But we don't condemn all environmentalists or even consider the environmental movement "dangerous". Why is that?

gmc wrote: The only reason it would worry me is if some religious nutter was in the white house and god told him to destroy the unbelievers.

Crickey, me too! But while our president is powerful, I think our system of checks and balances is strong enough to immediately remove such a psycho from office - assuming such a disturbed individual could get elected in the first place Congress, the military, etc. won't follow the orders of a nutter.

Look, all I can tell you is that your fear is based on stereotypes. I've been in fundamentalist and evangelical churches all my life and I've never once, never once heard anything remotely insinuating violence towards unbelievers or other beliefs. NEVER. Yes, pray for them, evangelize them, but never kill them. I've heard and experienced more intolerance and animosity towards others in my union meetings than I could ever dream of hearing in church. And it's a Teamster fact that unions can be violent and dangerous. Funny that we don't rail against union members. :-6

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:56 am

ADAM "For an example of atheists trying to impose thier belief system on us, look no further than the Soledad Cross controversy. Are they as dangerous as the Taliban, too?"

The city of San Diego was ordered by a U.S. District judge to remove the cross from PUBLICLY OWNED LAND because he deemed it unconstitional.

How does this represent atheists trying to impose their belief system on "us?"

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:28 am

You know how. We already have a Soledad Cross thread at FG so I'm not going to rehash it here. But you know full well that atheists are trying to force communities all over the country to dismantle symbols and memorials that mean something to those communities simply because the atheists don't like it. You can't have it both ways, Lu - claiming that the Taliban religious right is trying to impose their beliefs on America while denying with a demur "Who me?" when presented with evidence that atheists and the ACLU are actually the ones doing the imposing.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:16 am

posted by adam zapple

You're condemning a whole subset of the population based on suppositions. It's as irrational as saying "If homosexuals gain political power, we'll become another Sodom and Gomorrah and they'll make us all turn gay!" Any group, any group is capable of anything I suppose but one really has to be rational. Is Stalin and Pol Pot an example of what America would be like if atheists gained political power? Certainly they are capable of committing atrocities. What if Al Gore becomes President and floods government offices with greenies. They are certainly capable of atrocities. Extreme environmental groups commit terrorist acts all the time. What if, what if, what if........

Yes you're right to a large extent. Basically I am saying that christian fundamentalists are as capable of imposing their will on other people, creating a theocracy and rule by fear, as any fundamentalist muslim. They have done so in the past and there are some who in the right circumstances will do so again. Whether they would get away with it nowadays is a different question. I don't just mean protestant sects either, the catholic church has also done so in the past and ruled by terror and given half a chance would have all christians following their teachings, nowadays they have given up using warfare to get their ends.

religious sectarian warfare was the norm for a very long time in europe, it lingers on in sectarian violence in parts of this country and also occasionally parts of europe. Religon and ethnic hatred make for a lethal combination, you see it nowadays in Serbia and russia and georgia. There are cultural divides that stem from it throughout europe, germany is a mix of catholic and protestant, the nordic countries tend to be protestant, france separates church and state for very good reasons and not just because french revolutionaries were all aetheists. england has it's own established church scotland is presbytarian, much blood was spilt working it all out.

There is nothing intrinsically evil about islam that causes the present terrorism just as there is nothing intrinsically evil about christianity. But there is a commonality that some people attracted to religon want to take it further and make everybody conform, in the right circumstances they get control and power and cause mayhem. Maybe it's a fault with moniotheistic religons, if you can accept there can be other religons you leave it open to question your faith some people can't deal with it so try and stop all dissension.

Same with politics. some greenies get together call themselves the animal liberation front and become terrorists because they believe they are right and evryone else wrong. revolutionary socialism was a daft idea that didn't get very far in industrialised countries where the population were educated-basically they saw right through to the basic flaw in the idealogy. Stalin wasn't just an atheist he was a revolutionery socialist in a country of peasants used to being downtrodden. He was also a megalomanic, even lenin warned his followers to be careful of him. Same with Pol Pot, in times of extremes sometimes extremists get power and they are not all sane and create such a climate of fear no one can stop them. He and stalin have it in common that they used political ideology to justify what they did. Islamic extremists use religious idealogy to justify his actions.

Racists used the bible to justify their hatred and called themselves christians-doesn't mean all christians are racists, but if racists can use the bible to convince others they are right they will do so and they have done so.

It's as irrational as saying "If homosexuals gain political power, we'll become another Sodom and Gomorrah and they'll make us all turn gay!" Any group, any group is capable of anything I suppose but one really has to be rational.

Not entirely irrational, there are just too many exemples of religious followers being prepared to impose their will on others and use secular power when they can to do so. That they don't now is because they have been defeated in the past. Nor is it just supposition but rather looking at the past and seeing what has and could happen again. This may be the 21st century but civilisation is a fragile flower that gets eaten from inside..

How about religious fanatics trying to have creatiionism taught as being as equally valid as the theory of evolution? It's hard to believe anyone would actually take that seriously. Same with abortion, here the debates on it tend to centre on the scientific evidence with religious belief not getting much of a look in.

Bear in mind I am not an American and am therefore an outsider looking in, so if I watch a programme like Jesus camp It's a bit like watching an anthropology documentary as it is so bizarre and alien.

I also suspect terms like fundamentalist and christian right have slightly different connotations to me than it does to you. I associate them with irrational bigotry and occasionally mindless violence. My picture of the Christian right is somewhat coloured by what I see in my own media and it's hardly likely to be an accurate picture as the extreme is what gets shown. So it's people like Pat Robertson that get news time. On Cable I have the God Channel as one of the free channels I get. I never watch it as it is I find it depressing, on the other hand it does make an awful lot of money which i suspect is it's main motive for being. But then I would have been burned as a heretical free thinker in another age.

posted by adam Zapple

Crickey, me too! But while our president is powerful, I think our system of checks and balances is strong enough to immediately remove such a psycho from office - assuming such a disturbed individual could get elected in the first place Congress, the military, etc. won't follow the orders of a nutter.

I hope it is as well. Seeing who you elect is almost as depressing as seeing who we've got.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:29 am

Although not a supporter of Christian fundamentalism or the Chrisitan right in America I do have to admit I see some differences of form from Muslim extremists. First off geographically speaking the Chrisitans are located in free and open society where dissent is at least tolerated (although perhaps deridden and mocked. Governments are generally democratic and freely elected and the populations tend to be less homogenous and more ethnically integrated. For these reasons I do not fear any kind of a direct take over in America by fundamentalists. There has been a shift in the US to get religion more influence in government and politics but this is a different kettle of fish from what Muslim extremists are attempting to do. The Christian right has also created a serious and growing backlash among more liberally minded Americans who are beginning to awaken to the dangers of too much relgious influence in government. We have become very polarized on this issue but this is a good thing IMO as it provides checks and balances. You will never see an American Theocracy in our lifetimes GMC although I know this concerns you. There are to many Americans who would fight such a thing to the death here.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:47 pm

zinkyusa wrote: Although not a supporter of Christian fundamentalism or the Chrisitan right in America I do have to admit I see some differences of form from Muslim extremists. First off geographically speaking the Chrisitans are located in free and open society where dissent is at least tolerated (although perhaps deridden and mocked. Governments are generally democratic and freely elected and the populations tend to be less homogenous and more ethnically integrated. For these reasons I do not fear any kind of a direct take over in America by fundamentalists. There has been a shift in the US to get religion more influence in government and politics but this is a different kettle of fish from what Muslim extremists are attempting to do. The Christian right has also created a serious and growing backlash among more liberally minded Americans who are beginning to awaken to the dangers of too much relgious influence in government. We have become very polarized on this issue but this is a good thing IMO as it provides checks and balances. You will never see an American Theocracy in our lifetimes GMC although I know this concerns you. There are to many Americans who would fight such a thing to the death here.

I suppose you could say the islamic fundamentalists are still in a medieval world. with an uneducated population still taken in by religious leaders.

Our development of democracy and concept of individual freedom I would suggest has bugger all to do with any religon from the middle east. Republic and democracy are pagan in origin not christian or muslim. But I digress

You are answering something I have wondered about. An american theocracy doesn't concern me at all as I don't have to live there, it would only have an impact so far as foreign policy does have a major effect.

Liberally minded americans do seem a bit cowed of late but my picture is a bit distorted as I said earlier. A lot of american science fiction and some ordinary fiction features a takeover of america by the religious right or corporations or secret agancies that work away and aren't accountable to anybody. It does tend to suggest a level of paranoia and concern about the insidious effect a lack of control of govt and big business can have.

Would a "Mr Smith goes to washington" get made nowadays or would it be seen as left wing propoganda and get banned?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Smith_ ... Washington

posted by adam zapple

I've heard and experienced more intolerance and animosity towards others in my union meetings than I could ever dream of hearing in church. And it's a Teamster fact that unions can be violent and dangerous. Funny that we don't rail against union members.

Ah we had unions once and even a labour party that supposedly represented the ordinary working man. Corrupt as anything else but at least you got good honest hypocrisy.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:28 pm

gmc wrote: Would a "Mr Smith goes to washington" get made nowadays or would it be seen as left wing propoganda and get banned?Man, have you got a skewed view of America! Nothing gets banned here. Either it plays & makes a profit or it doesn't. A TV series called Mr. Stewart played two years ago (if I remember right). I really enjoyed it, but it got cancelled due to poor ratings.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:56 am

Accountable wrote: Man, have you got a skewed view of America! Nothing gets banned here. Either it plays & makes a profit or it doesn't. A TV series called Mr. Stewart played two years ago (if I remember right). I really enjoyed it, but it got cancelled due to poor ratings.

There really is a cultural divide when it comes to humour between America and the UK isn't there. I was being facetious, tongue in cheek, using irony. I was kidding, pulling your plonker, taking the mickey. NOT serious.

Mind you I hadn't realised it had been condemned as anti american and communist when first released until I went on line to check i had the right film title.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:44 pm

ADAM "But you know full well that atheists are trying to force communities all over the country to dismantle symbols and memorials that mean something to those communities simply because the atheists don't like it. "

Oh, Adam, it's about legality! It's about public funds/land/venues being used to support a particular religious symbol. I don't know how I'm failing to convey this to you. You seem to view this as some sort of atheistic PLOT to stop your religious expression.

NOT SO! Enjoy your religious life! Please! Carol in churches; pray in your homes; observe holidays; tithe and perform whichever obligations your heart finds necessary.

Just don't use publicly owned land/funds to do it. And that's what's behind the effort to remove the Soledad cross and that's what's behind the effort to stop prayer in school, commandments in courthouses and whatever other trappings Christians have established over time and now are reluctant to give up, even though they just might be TALIBANESQUE.

"TALIBANESQUE" in this case referring to obvious governmental pressures/favors toward religion, behaviors, preferences, etc.

(Covert efforts by the City of San Diego to transfer that publicly owned parcel underneath the cross to a private facility, etc, were exposed for exactly what they were--unethical behavior by a group which favors a particular religious symbol. They even called it a WAR MEMORIAL! PSHAW! I guess none of the U.S. military personnel "honored" by the Christian cross were other than Christians? Hogwash! Suppose I wanted to erect a giant star/crescent on that land? Would you find that ok?)