Last month, Albuquerque, N.M., resident Ralph Rodriguez Jr. died. One of the last “Battling Bastards of Bataan” survivors of a death march through the Philippines jungle, methodical malnutrition, and sadistic torture by the Japanese in World War II, he was 100 years old. In northern New Mexico’s high desert, bounded by the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, in the town of Taos, is a memorial to him and men with whom he served, including those whose remains were never recovered. Its cross drew the ire of a deep-pocketed anti-religion group, but help is on the way if the Supreme Court grants a petition filed last week.
On Dec. 8, 1941, hours after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Japanese forces invaded the Philippines, which were defended by the 515th Coastal Artillery Regiment, 200th Coastal Artillery Regiment, 192nd Tank Battalion, 194th Tank Battalion, and regular, national, and commonwealth groups of the Philippine Army. The 515th and 200th were New Mexicans sent to the Philippines because most spoke fluent Spanish. They fought bravely, but Japanese forces quickly overwhelmed them. On April 9, 1942, they surrendered.
Immediately, the Japanese sent survivors on the “Bataan Death March” to prison camps 65 miles away. Prisoners received little food or water and were tortured frequently. Those who could not keep up, or angered their captors, were summarily executed. The New Mexicans were singled out because the Japanese could not distinguish those of Mexican descent from the Filipinos, so they beat them brutally in frustration. A Filipino division of 350 was rounded up and every man beheaded. Of the estimated 80,000 who began the march, only 54,000 reached its end.
New Mexican War Mothers, using private donations — the town of Taos did no fundraising, planning, designing, or building — erected a memorial in Taos’ plaza to honor their loved ones. The memorial contains a brass plaque with the names of New Mexicans who died on the Bataan Death March and other Taos citizens who were killed in World War II, a sculpture of soldiers sustaining each other during the march, and the flags of the United States and New Mexico. A central feature is a Latin cross, below which the plaque with the soldiers’ names is affixed.
Last year, the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation wrote a letter to the town of Taos...
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
14 comments:
Joe
I have a question
Mexico just voted for a Socialist president why then are the Mexican People leaving Mexico ?
How can atheist sue but as a religious person you can't? Unless you are muslim?
The monument has been up for 57 years give or take. Now, the amount of time something is in violation of the law has no bearing on it's legality. If it violates the law, it violates the law.
Can anyone mistake that cross as anything other than a Christian symbol? If not, then what does it represent?
My next question, is why? Why does the monument HAVE to have that symbol... if it is a monument to represent deceased American Soldiers, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use symbols and iconography that include all Americans, not just some?
I am unconvinced that this is an "establishment" of religion, but having a strictly Christian symbol is a problem unless it can be shown that it is a better choice than one that is neutral to religion or non-religious. I have to ask why? Why use this? What is it's meaning?
Can anyone conclude that this is anything other than a religious symbol for any reason? I'm open to hearing it.
"...Now, the amount of time something is in violation of the law has no bearing on it's legality..."
You present a well-spoken argument, but it is based on a false premise-- that this cross on the monument 'violates the law'.
What 'law' does it violate? No law.
It goes against a proclamation of opinion from activist judges that was contrary to Constitutional principles. If anything violated the law, that did.
These people paid for this monument and it is their privately-funded 'expression'. It is their Constitutional right to do so. Anyone else's opinion about it is just that-- an opinion. They have the right to an opinion, but not to a veto.
Citizens do not forfeit their constitutional rights when they are on public property.
All of these men came from Catholic families and were Catholics themselves. Part of what allowed them to survive their ordeals was their faith.
To deny them and their survivors the simple expression of what was so important to them and their families is a crime.
When are we the people going to start stomping on these Traitors.
Great point.
How does a cross on a war memorial somehow make Congress establish a religion?
What am I not getting about this?
Hasn't anybody read all the words in the First Amendment?
2:52 IIRC the monument was erected and paid for by private citizens and its contents are in accord with their wishes at the time. They were evidently religious people and so were many/most of the deceased. Thus the cross.
Nobody is preaching; nobody is forced to articulate a belief or adhere to a state dictated religion. Nobody is taxed to support a state dictated religion. Those were the practices in England that led to the language in our Constitution.
The dead of Bunker Hill, Tripoli, Gettysburg, Belleau Wood, Pearl Harbor, Normandy, Choisin Reservoir, DaNang, Iraq, Afghanistan and, yes, even Baatan are the ones who paid for and ensured the viability of the Constitution we hold so dear. The self-same Constitution that affords these malicious idiots in Wisconsin the opportunity to try to desecrate a monument to those who died so they could cause trouble a thousand miles away. Fie on them!
There are no atheists in fox holes... truth
The cross on the memorial says this:
"This symbol represents what these brave men and their families believed in, and what gave them strength when no strength should have been left. Honor their belief."
@5:56 pm
Not only is that not true, but it is down right dismissive AND insulting.
It disrespects the honor and service if American soldiers who have made the highest sacrifice for our great nation.
It spits in the very face of our Constitution and our freedoms and liberties.
Why do you hate our troops?
@4pm Jim
I understand your position, and have heard this argument before. I am "skeptical" about the claims of "activist judges"... I feel this is a brand used whenever someone disagrees with the courts rulings.
Like it or not, the Constitution is the law, and the law has been ruled on by the Supreme Court, and there are court rulings and precedents set regarding the establishment clause of the Constitution.
I agree with you, people do not loose their rights when they are on public land. However, who pays for upkeep of that public land? Who maintains the monument? These things don't fall under the protected blanket of a persons guaranteed right to freedom of religion.
The Constitution guarantees YOU get to have freedom of religion and practice as you see fit. It does not guarantee you can erect your religions iconography on public land. Unless I missed that section in the law?
Once you involve others in the iconography, or use others tax dollars... it is not just YOU anymore, and as such does not fall under the religious protection. This is another reason the Courts support the establishment clause in this way.
I'm happy to say I am wrong, did I miss anything?
The cross has become a memorial sign. They are all along our highways where accidents have taken lives. They are placed in battlefields around the world. These liberal protesters are weakening our freedoms and making lawyers richer.
Post a Comment