NEW Welcome Ad

Collapse

Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Marching For Peace; Un-American ??

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Marching For Peace; Un-American ??

    On this Memorial Day of Rememberance, let us ponder the disapproval, and the Rights, of war veterans to march in a parade; if it is honorable to dignify this day with rememberance, it must also be honorable to march for peace.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vets for Peace Booted from National Memorial Day Parade

    There is one group of veterans that isn’t allowed to march in the national memorial parade in Washington on Monday.

    That’s the Veterans for Peace, Delwin Anderson Memorial chapter, based in D.C. It’s named after a World War II vet who fought in Italy and then worked for the VA for many years designing programs for injured veterans.

    The group had applied to join the National Memorial Day parade.

    And initially, anyway, it was accepted.

    But then, late last month, the group was told that it didn’t meet the criteria to participate.

    The American Veterans Center, which runs the parade, told them “we cannot have elements in the parade that have any type of political message or wish to promote a point of view.”

    But other groups, like the American Legion, will be participating in the parade.

    Its creed is to defend “God and country” and to “foster and perpetuate a 100 percent Americanism.”

    And check out the list of major sponsors for the parade. They include: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, the nation of Kuwait, the U.S. Army, and even the NRA.

    “We’re striving to keep political statements out of the parade,” says Jordan Cross, communications director of the American Veterans Center. “Last year, we had two groups who supported the war, and we turned them down.”

    Cross says that when the American Veterans Center looked more closely at the Vets for Peace application and “saw what they were requesting, to carry a coffin in the parade, and all that j***,” it decided not to let them participate.

    Michael Marceau, a wounded Vietnam vet, serves as vice president of the D.C. Vets for Peace group. “We’re puzzled,” he said, adding that he felt “very disrespected.”

    Caroline Anderson, the widow of Delwin Anderson, was supposed to ride in the parade in a convertible. Bashful, she doesn’t want to talk about herself or on behalf of the Vets for Peace chapter. But she is not happy about the expulsion. “It’s a great disappointment,” she says, “to feel that other veterans would not allow them to be with them and march, just because they’re for peace.”


  • #2
    If I understand correctly, the parade is sponsored by the American Veretans Center, a private organization. I believe they can theme their parade to whatever message they deem appropriate. Perhaps the message of the excluded group was not in keeping with the Veterans Center theme.
    Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

    Comment


    • #3
      I am invariably offended by an organization's use of the word "progressive" in its name or publication title. "Progressive" is a euphemism for "leftist," and the policies advocated rarely would constitute "progress," other than progress on the road to disaster.

      In short, I would not trust stories from the link to be objective.

      Comment


      • #4
        We need to whole story first. I looked Here and checked out some pictures of "rallies" and I saw quite a few political posters/signs.

        Memorial Day is about the dead, not about those who sent them to die. We can worry about them the other 364 days of the year.
        “The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed."

        "You go for a man hard enough and fast enough, he don't have time to think about how many's with him; he thinks about himself, and how he might get clear of that wrath that's about to set down on him."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by L-1 View Post
          If I understand correctly, the parade is sponsored by the American Veretans Center, a private organization. I believe they can theme their parade to whatever message they deem appropriate. Perhaps the message of the excluded group was not in keeping with the Veterans Center theme.

          With all due respect, you may not have interpreted the article correctly.

          Vets for Peace Booted from National Memorial Day Parade

          There is one group of veterans that isn’t allowed to march in the national memorial parade in Washington on Monday.

          That’s the Veterans for Peace, Delwin Anderson Memorial chapter, based in D.C. It’s named after a World War II vet who fought in Italy and then worked for the VA for many years designing programs for injured veterans.

          The group had applied to join the National Memorial Day parade.

          The word 'National' means everyone, in my opinion.

          And initially, anyway, it was accepted.

          But then, late last month, the group was told that it didn’t meet the criteria to participate.

          The American Veterans Center, which runs the parade, told them “we cannot have elements in the parade that have any type of political message or wish to promote a point of view.”

          But other groups, like the American Legion, will be participating in the parade.

          Its creed is to defend “God and country” and to “foster and perpetuate a 100 percent Americanism.”

          Isn't 'advocating for peace' synonomous to "foster and perpetuate 100% Americanism? What exactly does 'Americanism' mean?

          And check out the list of major sponsors for the parade. They include: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, the nation of Kuwait, the U.S. Army, and even the NRA.

          I believe all of the above sponsors have a horse in the race in the way of a political message.

          “We’re striving to keep political statements out of the parade,” says Jordan Cross, communications director of the American Veterans Center. “Last year, we had two groups who supported the war, and we turned them down.”

          Cross says that when the American Veterans Center looked more closely at the Vets for Peace application and “saw what they were requesting, to carry a coffin in the parade, and all that j***,” it decided not to let them participate.

          What more fitting symbol of rememberance than a coffin? Does exhibiting a cross in a cemetary, of a fallen soldier an inappropriate sign? The wording 'and all that j***' ...what does it mean?


          Michael Marceau, a wounded Vietnam vet, serves as vice president of the D.C. Vets for Peace group. “We’re puzzled,” he said, adding that he felt “very disrespected.”

          Caroline Anderson, the widow of Delwin Anderson, was supposed to ride in the parade in a convertible. Bashful, she doesn’t want to talk about herself or on behalf of the Vets for Peace chapter. But she is not happy about the expulsion. “It’s a great disappointment,” she says, “to feel that other veterans would not allow them to be with them and march, just because they’re for peace.”

          This is nothing more than the Vietnam era, (war protestors) revisited. Only this time around the media is not around to cover the story; the war must go forth.
          Last edited by Stormy; 05-26-2008, 04:00 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by tpc View Post
            I am invariably offended by an organization's use of the word "progressive" in its name or publication title. "Progressive" is a euphemism for "leftist," and the policies advocated rarely would constitute "progress," other than progress on the road to disaster.

            In short, I would not trust stories from the link to be objective.
            Good point. And maybe 'Democracy' is a euphemism for 'Communism'.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Stormy View Post
              With all due respect, you may not have interpreted the article correctly.
              No, I think I interpreted it correctly. A private organization wanted to hold a parade commemorating a national holiday. They wished their event to follow a particular theme (as is their right). A second group applied to participate in that parade, was at first accepted, but was later rejected when the host organization discovered that what the second group wanted to do was contrary to the host group's theme.

              If I understand correctly, the agency conducting the parade is a private organization and not a government entity. They should be able to theme their event as they see fit and not as others demand.

              Of course, the other group is free to take out their own parade permit and conduct their own event in a time and place that does not conflict with pre-existing permit holders.
              Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Stormy View Post
                Good point. And maybe 'Democracy' is a euphemism for 'Communism'.
                Actually, "Progressive" is much more of a euphemism for Communism. Here's a definition from Merriam-Webster online:
                (4) : a member of a left-wing minor party split off from the Democrats and usually associated with essentially socialist domestic policies and a pro-Russian foreign policy

                And just what does "progressive" mean to you?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by L-1 View Post
                  No, I think I interpreted it correctly. A private organization wanted to hold a parade commemorating a national holiday. They wished their event to follow a particular theme (as is their right). A second group applied to participate in that parade, was at first accepted, but was later rejected when the host organization discovered that what the second group wanted to do was contrary to the host group's theme.

                  If I understand correctly, the agency conducting the parade is a private organization and not a government entity. They should be able to theme their event as they see fit and not as others demand.

                  Of course, the other group is free to take out their own parade permit and conduct their own event in a time and place that does not conflict with pre-existing permit holders.
                  Here's another story on the same issue. Some of what we both agree/disagree on are better explained;

                  Veterans peace group blocked from D.C. parade

                  By Stephen Manning - The Associated Press
                  Posted : Wednesday May 21, 2008 6:10:51 EDT

                  WASHINGTON — A veterans group that opposes the war in Iraq has been blocked from marching in a Memorial Day parade in Washington after being told its plans, which once included a casket representing war dead, would be too political for the event.

                  Veterans for Peace was initially granted a spot in the Monday parade that is scheduled to travel down Constitution Avenue, past landmarks that include the Washington Monument and the White House.

                  But the American Veterans Center, a nonprofit that organizes the parade, has pulled that approval, saying it does not allow the expression of political viewpoints.

                  Anthony Teolis, treasurer of the Washington-area chapter of Veterans for Peace, said that as veterans, the group should be able to take part in the parade. He said it was being singled out because of its anti-war views.

                  “We are a veterans group like any other except we have the word ‘peace’ in our name,” Teolis said.

                  Jim Roberts, president of the Arlington, Va.-based American Veterans Center, said the group strives to keep political statements out of the parade. Last year, two groups that supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were turned down. The Veterans for Peace program initially was approved by a contractor handling parade planning, but it was revoked when the center saw its plans for the march.

                  “We don’t allow groups in the parade that are projecting an opinion. That goes for pro-mission as well as anti-war,” Roberts said.

                  The parade, now in its fifth year, includes marchers that span the military history of America, from Revolutionary War re-enactors to active-duty military units. Other marchers scheduled for this year include 20 high school bands, a military high school and actor Gary Sinise. Last year, roughly 250,000 people attended.

                  The Washington-area chapter of Veterans for Peace submitted an application outlining plans to include a “miniature hand drawn funeral casket with U.S. flag symbolizing fallen troops,” according to a copy of their proposal. A convertible carrying three World War II veterans also was planned.

                  Teolis said the group dropped the casket plan when the producers of the parade objected. But he said the Veterans Center still barred the group from the parade.

                  Made up of military veterans dating back to before World War II, Veterans for Peace opposes the use of war to meet national objectives and wants American troops in Iraq to be brought home. It has roughly 7,500 members in 122 chapters nationwide.

                  It has sought to march in other parades honoring veterans with mixed results. Michael McPhearson, national executive director of Veterans for Peace, said the group took part in Veterans Day parades in New York and marched in other events nationwide. But it was blocked from taking part in events in cities such as Boston.

                  McPhearson said the group does not dishonor veterans. The parades, which highlight wars waged for political ends, are inherently political, he said.

                  “It is ridiculous to say we have this political objective when the whole thing is about politics,” McPhearson said.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Stormy View Post
                    ends, are inherently political, he said.

                    “It is ridiculous to say we have this political objective when the whole thing is about politics,” McPhearson said.

                    http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/0...parade_052008/
                    Ok, so drop the coffins and the anti-war crap.
                    "First of all, then we have to say the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama." - Al Sharpton, March 21, 2010

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by equinox137 View Post
                      Ok, so drop the coffins and the anti-war crap.
                      So then...what good is the 1st Amendment? Might as well drop the coffin, the anti-war crap, and the Bill of Rights. I know...I know....but it's a private organization?? They have their rights also. Maybe....and....maybe not. When you go to the public, and you're marching on public land, I believe, you open up the pandora's box of having to allow ALL to march in your parade.

                      Unless you're marching on private property.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by tpc View Post
                        Actually, "Progressive" is much more of a euphemism for Communism. Here's a definition from Merriam-Webster online:
                        (4) : a member of a left-wing minor party split off from the Democrats and usually associated with essentially socialist domestic policies and a pro-Russian foreign policy

                        And just what does "progressive" mean to you?
                        Good question. I'd can't label an organization based on a word. I'd need to look into their mission statement; their agenda.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Stormy View Post
                          Here's another story on the same issue. Some of what we both agree/disagree on are better explained
                          I still don't see a problem. This event is run by a private organization. They perceive the participation of Vetreans for Peace as sending a message contrary to the theme they wish to convey in their parade. Apparently they have not allowed pro-war groups to participate in the past, as well. Clearly, they are trying to distance themselves from either side of the pro/anti-war controversy.

                          It's their event. It's their right to shape it as they see fit. It's their right to determine who participates and who doesn't. I'm at a loss to see what the problem is. I don't know what more to say.

                          Best of luck.
                          Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Stormy View Post
                            So then...what good is the 1st Amendment?
                            So you are saying that if someone holds a peace march on public property they have to let pro-war groups march in the parade, too? I don't think that the First Amendment requires that. Neither do the courts.

                            Get your own parade permit and your group can march in its own parade.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Stormy View Post
                              So then...what good is the 1st Amendment?
                              The 1st Amendment applies to Congress (and the states, via the 14th Amendment), not to the American Veterans Center.

                              Originally posted by Stormy View Post
                              Might as well drop the coffin, the anti-war crap, and the Bill of Rights.
                              Yes, if it was Congress or a state government, BUT....

                              Originally posted by Stormy View Post
                              I know...I know....but it's a private organization?? They have their rights also.
                              Exactly.

                              Originally posted by Stormy View Post
                              Maybe....and....maybe not.
                              Ummm....no, there's no "maybe" about it. The 1st Amendment does not read "Everyone shall make no law or rule respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

                              Originally posted by Stormy View Post
                              When you go to the public, and you're marching on public land, I believe, you open up the pandora's box of having to allow ALL to march in your parade.

                              Unless you're marching on private property.
                              I don't know if I'd call Constitution Avenue "public land".
                              Last edited by equinox137; 05-25-2008, 11:11 PM.
                              "First of all, then we have to say the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama." - Al Sharpton, March 21, 2010

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 4356 users online. 241 members and 4115 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X