6/20/19 – MRFF DENOUNCES U.S. SUPREME COURT RULING THAT BLADENSBURG CROSS CAN STAND ON PUBLIC LAND

Click to Read

Share this page:

Commenter Account Access

  • Register for a commenter account
    (Not required to post comments, but will save you time if you're a regular commenter)
  • Log in using your existing account
  • Click here to edit your profile and change your password
  • All comments are subject to our Terms of Use

6 Comments

  1. Greg Murphy

    Leave it alone. It represents 49 soldiers that gave their lives fighting in a horrible war. Groups like you are the problem today. Always stirring up shit. As a vet I have a real problem with you. You are nothing but common nazis. STFU and move your ass along. The monument stats asshole!!!!

  2. Mark Sebree

    Greg Murphy,

    And what about the other vets from the county that also gave their lives in the same war that are not on that eyesore of a cross? They only included christian soldiers on that christian symbol on government land.

    People like you and groups like “First Liberty” and AFA are a problem. You do not appreciate that the government is barred from showing favoritism towards any religion or religious expression, such has having and maintaining a 40 ft. example of that religion in a busy street on government land. Calling it a “war memorial” is just an excuse.

    You are nothing but theocrats and dominionists. You do not respect the US Constitution, and you do not appreciate the fact that you cannot use the government for favor your religious beliefs or impose your beliefs onto others. You are a “domestic enemy” that you took an oath to protect this country against. As a vet, I have a serious problem with you and those like you. You want to destroy this country and replace it with tyranny, much like nazis.

    You need to get a real education, STFU, and start defending the rights of others rather than thinking only of yourself. The monument, despite what the activist judges on the Supreme Court said, really should be dismantled and removed. If they want a war memorial to the county’s fallen from WWI, there is a great example of a classy, secular one not far away on the National Mall.

  3. Tom corrigan

    You want to destroy war memorial and you called someone a domestic enemy for having an opinion, you are literally jackbooted Nazi scum.
    Do us a favor and eat a round.

  4. Mark

    I have no problem if it’s on private land .. where is the memorial for Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, baha’I and atheist soldiers.. did they not give their lives too? You ignore them?

  5. Mark Sebree

    Tom,

    Sorry, but unlike you I am not a far right conservative, so I am not a nazi. If I lived in 1930s – 1940s Germany, I would likely be rounded up and locked away in a concentration camp. Check your history. Germany locked away many more groups than just the Jews.

    Also, if you notice, my suggestion was to REPLACE the latin cross that represents christianity exclusively and which is residing on PUBLIC land with something else that would represent the fallen of every religion, as well as atheists and agnostics, without favoring any religious beliefs. The war memorial I was referring to on the National Mall is the justly famous Vietnam War Memorial Wall.

    I was also replying to Greg in the same manner as he wrote his message. I was basically throwing his dialog back at him. Except, unlike him, I was replacing ignorance with intelligence and education. I was also pointing out that the blatantly christian war memorial does not represent all of the fallen, thus is not inclusive.

    As far as calling someone a “domestic enemy for having an opinion”, look back at what Greg wrote verses what I wrote. Greg was telling Mikey to to stop defend others and their rights when those rights are denied, which is in contravention of the Freedom on Conscious Clause, the Freedom of Speech Clause, the Right to Petition the Government for Redress clause, and since the MRFF deals almost exclusively with the military, the Prohibition against the government Respecting the Establishment of Religion clause, or basically the entire First Amendment. He did nothing but hurl insults and ad hominem attacks against the MRFF, and yet he did nothing at all to support his position. I simply turned his words and hatred against him, and supported my position. Calling him a “domestic enemy” for seeking to deny others their rights was turning his own oath of enlistment or commissioning against him.

    And Tom, I reject your hateful suggestion. If you cannot engage in an intelligent conversation and debate, but rather tell an opponent that they should kill themselves because they tell the truth and disagree with your worldview, and well as do nothing more than call your opponent names because you cannot counter their arguments in an intelligent and informed manner, then you present yourself as someone that does not appreciate and understand the First Amendment’s right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but you also potentially give others the impression that you might want to quell and chill other people’s freedom of speech and other freedoms, and thus potentially present yourself as a domestic enemy of the USA as well. You are free to continue writing and showing that my analysis of you is accurate.

  6. Mark Sebree

    Other Mark,

    That was pretty much my point as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*