I am against unnecessary and excessive impositions of religion in the public sphere (religion is something best left to the individual, as my thinking goes), but sometimes I really do not understand the motivations or the issues with those who fight to remove every vestige of religion from the public arena. This appears to be one of those cases:
A ballot measure to preserve the Mount Soledad cross on public land in La Jolla easily surpassed the two-thirds support it needed for approval Tuesday night. But the voters’ decision on Proposition A won’t be the final word. The controversy heads back to court next month.
Two court dates are scheduled in the next three weeks. A Superior Court judge will examine the ballot measure’s constitutionality Aug. 12, and a federal judge will hear cross-related arguments Aug. 15.
The proposition calls for the San Diego City Council to give the 29-foot cross, a concentric set of granite walls and the land around them to the U.S. Interior Department as a national veterans memorial.
Tuesday night, three dozen Proposition A backers at the Westgate Hotel greeted the early returns with cheers. Among them was Phil Thalheimer, chairman of a group called San Diegans for the Mount Soledad National War Memorial.
“Holy cow,” Thalheimer said, looking at absentee-voting results that showed three out of four voters backing Proposition A. “It is better than I expected.”
Attorney James McElroy, whose client filed a lawsuit challenging the presence of the cross on city land in 1989, called the vote meaningless.
“It still doesn’t mean a damn thing,” he said. “Voters should have never voted on it. It’s a waste of taxpayers’ money.”
The cross has been there since 1954. It is a War Memorial. It has a great deal of significance to a great deal of people, and I don’t understand why it would have to go. This isn’t a two-ton granite version of the Ten Commandments in a Court House. I don’t understand the big deal.
Plus, it is kind of pretty, as far as war memorials go:
Again, if there is some background to this story I am missing, some extenuating factors I am unaware of, fill me in. Because right now it really does look to me like this is nothing more than a bunch of secularists simply trying to force their way on a community that generally seems to hold the memorial in pretty high regard. And if that is the case, it just ain’t right.
jg
I think its pretty too but I can see how someone would take that to mean these people died for the cross.
You can’t see it as secularists trying to prevent something from being forced on them?
metalgrid
I see the balance that we have right now as a status quo. People push, others push back and it helps to hold the center. Same thing with guns, people try to ban em, others push back and it helps to hold the center. Pretty things like this get broken in the process. Guess we’re just gonna have to live with that when the extremists are throwing shit at each other its the center that gets hit the most.
eileen from OH
John, I think that it’s really the slippery slope thing. If you say that this monument and other religious reference things (including “In God We Trust” on coins, and the Pledge) are okay, then the next time someone wants the Ten Commandments at a State House or a crucifix in a classroom, it’s tough to defend. Precedents have been sent.
I actually think that Sandra O’Connor was on to something when she split the difference on two recent cases. If there are things that have existed long enough that there is a certain amount of tradition involved, they can remain. But new ones, or ones that have sprung up in recent years, that were clearly religiously motivated, are not. It’s a tough needle to thread, and almost involves setting a date, which could be be tough to enforce. And there’s an element of hypocrisy. But I don’t know how else to solve it, other than tearing ’em ALL down, or taking them on a case by case basis, which will keep lots of lawyers busy from now on, or just giving up and allowing whatever religious symbols anyone in power wants.
Of course, I have always failed to see the effectiveness of erecting things like stone tablets of the Ten Commandments. If you ain’t followin’ ’em already, a monument isn’t likely to make you start.
eileen from OH
BinkyBoy
Most of the Ten Commandments hoopla was started by rabid right-winger Fred Phelps when he said that if the Ten Commandments was on public property he could construct his anti-gay Matthew Shephard killing monument as well.
And in the battle for secularism, wouldn’t having the fundies anonymously start this stuff actually work in their benefit, giving credit to their attempted martyrdom?
I know it sounds tin-foil hat-ish, but heck, what works better for Christians than pretend persecution?
Marcus Wellby
It is a little unclear which war this cross memorializes, but are we to assume its a war in which only Christian soldiers died?
I think it has the look of a tacky road-side attraction — like the “world’s largest ball of twine” or something along those lines.
Marcus Wellby
I always had the same feeling myself. Cases like this must really give a jolt to fund(y)raising campaigns.
ed in texas
Are you aware someone has tried to get the VA to remove the crosses from the national cemeteries?
Jimmy Jazz
I like Eileen’s response. Stuff like this is part of a historical and cultural heritage, and I don’t want it paved over. But the rabidly agnostic taxpayer in me doesn’t think the government ought be to be funding any public religious display. Period.
Another Jeff
I haven’t set foot in a church in five years for anything other than weddings or funerals, but I think i’ll send a donation to the people working to keep the cross just to piss off the miserable pukes who are trying to get rid of it.
Just on my short eight-mile drive home on I-95 tonight, I’ll see two billboards advertising strip clubs and one advertising Adult World (not that i have anything against strip clubs, i’ve been to both and they’re quite nice), but these no-life-having jerkoffs are offended by a cross.
metalgrid
But the rabidly agnostic taxpayer in me doesn’t think the government ought be to be funding any public religious display. Period.
The less property government has to display stuff on the better. I wish they would put this whole monument area up for auction and sell it off to the highest bidder who can either rip it down or preserve the monument or light a fire under the cross or whatever. That should shut em up good.
demimondian
Whoo, John, you brought the m00nb4ts out today!
I’m with Eileen from OH, here. It’s got some history behind it, and it’s meant, in a non-religious sense, reverently. The thing about most of the Ten Commandments displays out there is that they were either promotional devices for Cecil B. DeMille or explicit attempts to force religious messages onto public property. I don’t see a strong reason (absent other evidence, which I’m certainly willing to hear) to tear it down.
Stormy70
He is a democrat.
eileen from OH
No, I’m offended by a cross on public land. A religious symbol, specific to one religion, is erected on land that is “owned” by the general public. A general public that includes those who aren’t Christian, and might even be (boo-hisssssss) atheists. I’m assuming that whoever owns the land that sports the strip billboards gave permission and was paid. Private landowners can erect nude statues of the Goddess Cali tap-dancing on Satan’s head for all I care, but it’s not a church/state issue. Putting up religious symbols on public land is.
yet another jeff
Here’s a thought…why not establish a statute of limitations on this sort of thing…keep new ones off, but leave historical landmarks alone. If you don’t take it to court in X amount of time, that’s it. You snost, you lost….
So, no 10 commandments appear in court houses (basis of law? Only three of them are are illegal anyway, coveting ain’t a crime), but 50 year old monuments get left alone.
jg
I had no idea my cat was a goddess. This news’ll do wonders for her attitude.
albedo
It’s interesting how the standard Christian response to stuff like this is, “What’s the big deal about a little cross?” I wonder how they’d feel if it was a, say, Star of David on public land over a war memorial.
rilkefan
Leave the cross; invert it and paint it black in even-numbered years. That way the gnostics will be happy, the xians and satanists will get their due, and the landscape will get a bit of variety.
eileen from OH
Stormy’s right – Phelps IS a democrat. He was stuffing envelopes right next to me at the Kerry/Edwards HQ in my town until we caught him slipping in pictures of Bush & Cheney cheek-dancing. Of course, it was balanced by having our local character (known to one and all as “FU Bob”) kicked out of Kinkos for slapping Bush/Cheney stickers on the backs of unsuspecting patrons. (Not really. “FU” is actually pretty funny and cool, but you get my point.)
I think that Stormy and DougJ should buy a house by the sea together and raise cats.
Mike S
When you go far enough to the right, you end up on th left. ;)
I think the “slippery slope” arguments are somewhat valid but think something like this should be “grandfathered” in order to let it stay. And if anyone is really trying to get the crosses out of veterans cemetaries, first I’ve heard of it, they are morons. I spent a great deal of time in the one in West Los Angeles, great party spot in high school, and there were plenty with the Star of David’s on them.
Bernard Yomtov
John,
Is it really hard to understand why people might reasonably be offended by this? Suppose you lived in San Diego and were not a Christian, and, say, your father had died in combat. Do you think the form of the memorial might bother you? Do you think you might feel that a memorial based on a cross did not include your father?
W.B. Reeves
You mean like Zell Miller or his late mentor Lester Maddox? Or like Strom Thurmond, once upon a time?
I’m shocked, shocked.
John Cole
Maybe not. But it sure is hard to understand how REASONABLE people would be offended by this. And I have as much of a hair trigger towards church/state issues as anyone.
Bob
There is a huge concrete cross on a hill in a public park in San Francisco which has been the subject of court battles for years. The last I heard, someone came up with a plan to sell the cross and the hundred feet around it for a buck to a local church, who would then maintain it. Problem solved.
Jeff G
I’m part of the general public and I’m a Luddite. I demand the removal of electrical lines, telephone poles, and any public bathroom that employ those devilish automatic hand dryers.
albedo
I wouldn’t send money to the San Diego ACLU to get this taken down, and on the Grand List of Big Problems, it’s about number four billion. No, it doesn’t even make the list. That said, however, if I lived in La Jolla and had a non-Christian family member represented on the memorial, yeah, I could see being offended.
Besides which, the law is on the “secularist” side. I mean, bitch all you want, but erecting giant crosses on public property was unconstitutional in 1954 and still is today.
Dr. Weevil
Three points:
1. This cross is actually the third on the site. According to this San Diego tourist site, which ought to know, the first was erected in 1913 and stolen in 1923, the second was put up in 1934 and blown down in a windstorm in 1952. The third one is still there. So there’s actually 92 years of tradition, not just 51, which seems like more than enough to me.
2. A cross is not always a Christian symbol. If it’s white on a red cloth background, it represents Switzerland. Other combinations of colors represent various Scandinavian countries. A flaming wood cross on someone’s front yard represents racial hatred and the Ku Klux Klan. And a small home-made cross by the side of a highway, often with flowers attached, is a memorial to someone killed in an auto accident, with little or no implication that the dead person was a practicing Christian. The Mt. Soledad cross seems to me to be more than half-way to being a generic monument to the dead of whatever religion. To put it another way: If it had a statue of a bearded guy in a loincloth nailed to it, it would be a blatantly and unambiguously Christian symbol. So too if it had a big sign saying “Jesus Saves” or if passersby were legally required (or even urged) to genuflect when walking past it. A plain cross honoring war dead is far more ecumenical.
3. It’s a bit hard to criticize the Taleban for blowing up Buddhas over there if you then gleefully chop down crosses here. It makes you look like a hypocrite. (If you thought destroying the Bamiyan Buddhas was OK, you’re something much worse than a hypocrite.)
Gregory Markle
“I wonder how they’d feel if it was a, say, Star of David on public land over a war memorial.”
I’d suppose you ought to stay out of the memorial park in my hometown then…and that’s in a town of 8,000 in one of the most conservative parts of Pennsylvania. Never heard a peep out of anybody about it…and frankly I think it’s absurd. We critcize the Taliban for destroying bhuddist sculptures in Afghanistan and then seek to literally do the same here? The cross is a symbol sacrifice…take it as that – it’s not like it’s mere presence is going to force anybody to believe things they don’t want to believe.
They build welfare offices on public ground and I find them EXTREMELY offensive…maybe they should all be torn down?
jg
True but in this case I think its safe to say it is a christian symbol.
Not the same. The Taliban didn’t want symbols of other religions in their lands. they don’t like religious symbols and certain not Buddhist ones. This is a case of a government that professes to be neutral in terms of religion sometimes turning a blind eye to what the religious folks do to keep the population somewhat stable. Kind of like the Saudi royal family sponsoring wahabism to keep the poulation from overthrowing them.
jg
Is there a clause in the Constitution that forbids the government from getting involved in the welfarte of its population? i’m with ya on the being offended thing but one of these issues has a constitutional argument, one doesn’t.
albedo
1) Okay
2) It’s casuistry to pretend that a crucifix in this context does not represent Christianity. This isn’t a Swiss freedom fighters monument. It’s plenty unambiguous.
3) Who’s “gleefully chopping down crosses?” I, for one, am getting pretty sick of Christians and their bizarre persecution complex. Try being an atheist in America for a day, with a (usually Christian) God constantly represented on the money, on the airwaves, on monuments like this, in the pledge of allegiance, at people’s dinner tables, etc., and then compare Christianity in America to Buddhism under the Taliban. Give me a break.
Al Maviva
John, take the picture down please. You’re webcasting it across the internet, which is government subsidized. Therefore the picture is an endorsement of religion.
Hey, everybody look! He’s oppressing me!
And while we’re on the subject of taking down war memorials with religious flava, let’s see if we can get up a posse from over at Kos to go remove the tens of thousands of crosses in U.S. military cemetaries in Normandy, Belgium and the Netherlands. They’re oppressing me too.
Kimmitt
I’m the sort of fellow who gets up in arms about the Pledge, and this seems silly to me.
Tulie
I know a lot of non-religious people who are starting to revolt against the increasingly noisy press of evangelical Christianity. To a lot of folks, it looks like little more than a hate-cult screaming “we’re oppressed” while they oppress everyone around them. And people are getting sick and tired of it.
I’m a Christian with a goodly bit of seminary training under my belt, and I agree with them a good bit of the time.
Does that make the press to remove any traces of religious symbology from public view more rational? No. But I don’t think it is going to get any better any time soon, as long as we have politicians trying to force their own whack-job version of “love thy neighbor” on us.
albedo
Yes, this thing is pretty trivial. And I do agree to a great extent with the “grandfather clause” idea.
Nonetheless, it is interesting that the side of this argument squarely in line with the constitution and extant case law is the one gone after as being “unreasonable” and “silly.”
vnjagvet
So what about these California towns named for saints of the Roman Catholic Church:
San Andreas (12)
San Anselmo (86)
San Bernardino (195)
San Bruno (119)
San Carlos (270)
San Clemente (221)
San Diego (4459)
San Dimas (85)
San Fernando (34)
San Francisco (7500)
San Gabriel (90)
San Geronimo (4)
San Gregorio (6)
San Jacinto (14)
San Joaquin (1)
San Jose (3055)
San Juan Bautista (16)
San Juan Capistrano (130)
San Leandro (204)
San Lorenzo (26)
San Luis Obispo (430)
San Luis Rey (7)
San Marcos (172)
San Marino (56)
San Martin (12)
San Mateo (491)
San Miguel (3)
San Onofre (1)
San Pablo (22)
San Pedro (118)
San Quentin (3)
San Rafael (516)
San Ramon (218)
San Simeon (24)
San Ysidro (13)
Santa Ana (541)
Santa Ana Heights (11)
Santa Barbara (1076)
Santa Clara (920)
Santa Clarita (215)
Santa Cruz (1096)
Santa Fe Springs (140)
Santa Margarita (8)
Santa Maria (124)
Santa Monica (820)
Santa Paula (33)
Santa Rosa (663)
Santa Ynez (20)
Santa Ysabel
And the ever popular city of the Angels Los Angeles and the capitol named for the sacraments of the Catholic Church, Sacramento.
Nothing religious about that, right?
Gregory Markle
“Is there a clause in the Constitution that forbids the government from getting involved in the welfarte of its population?”
It was sarcasm really. I’ve seen welfare work…I really have. I’ve also seen it abused through several generations of decendants. The first case I’ve seen a handfull of times, the second case I’ve seen more times than I could begin to recall. At least my one friend’s father has been promoted to a supervisory position in a nearby welfare office…believe me, that man is saving you tax dollars every day he is on the job!
albedo
Is there a point somewhere in there? Or is that just the obligatory and entirely unhelpful reductio ad absurdum that always gets heaved into these church/state comments threads in lieu of an actual argument?
Otto Man
Wow, these are some excellent strawmen you all have erected.
eileen from OH
Jeff G sez
I know you’re being facetious (and I am SO with you on the hand dryer thing) but your point (and I’m firmly convinced you have one) has nuthin’ to do with the Church/state issue. You can certainly be a Luddite, but as long as we aren’t erecting a monument to the Church of the Unabomber on public land, what’s the prob? We’re not talking about political or ideological or personal leanings toward some stance or another. We’re NOT talking about being offended, either aesthetically (damn, how do I spellcheck?) or personally, for whatever reaso. We’re talking about clearly religious symbols of a particular faith being erected on land that, supposedly, belongs to all – Christians, Jews, Wiccans, Druids, and worshippers of Thor, The Immortal Tree. Oh, and real-live, tax-paying citizens (some of whom are – gasp – even patriotic) who don’t subscribe to any religion at all.
As I’ve already said – I do think there is common ground to be found, using tradition and longevity as a lynchpin. But when I hear those who legitimately question a clearly religious symbol on public land described as “pukes,” I wonder if a common ground can be found. And I wonder if anything less than complete capitulation and complete integration of the Christian Church into government would be acceptable to them.
albedo
“But when I hear those who legitimately question a clearly religious symbol on public land described as “pukes,” I wonder if a common ground can be found.”
Yes, but you see, Christians are so systematically persecuted in this godless nation of ours, not to mention underrepresented in Congress (only 436 out of 540!), it’s easy to see why they feel the need to lash out!
Bernard Yomtov
And while we’re on the subject of taking down war memorials with religious flava, let’s see if we can get up a posse from over at Kos to go remove the tens of thousands of crosses in U.S. military cemetaries in Normandy, Belgium and the Netherlands. They’re oppressing me too.
Al,
Those crosses are on individual graves. Get it? Individual graves. This is going to be a memorial honoring veterans. That’s veterans plural, not one particular veteran. I happen to think it should honor all veterans, not just most of them. If a church or other private group wants to set up a memorial on their property to honor only Christian veterans they are free to do so. But if the government does it then let’s have it be inclusive.
What in the world is hard to understand about that?
eileen from OH
Sorta tangentially, I’m curious. Who among us would support and vote for a candidate for any office that was openly an atheist? I mean, someone who is a great candidate, in whatever ideology you espouse, and is a decent, honest, knowledgeable, ethical and an all-round terrific person for the job, and who freely admits that he/she doesn’t believe in God and that God doesn’t play a part in his/her life at all.
eileen from OH
DougJ
When will the war against Christianity end? How much is enough for the militant secularists? Is it not enough to have banished God from the classroom? Now must He be banished from the public square?
It is time to draw a line in the sand. It is time to say “No” to taking “In God We Trust” off the money, to say “No” teaching our children the pseudo-scienctific myths of evolution and the big bang, to say “No” to the lying doctors who assented to the murder of Terri Schiavo.
Where will this end?
albedo
Being an atheist, I would, obviously (vote for an atheist). I doubt a lot of other Americans would, though.
It routinely amazes me, come election time, how much it clearly matters to people. Judging from Kerry’s labored Catholic performance last year, you have to be perceived as deeply religious to get elected. Not sure why. Some hazy idea of having “God-given strength in your darkest moment” or something? Anyway, I don’t get it, but there it is.
DougJ
“Some hazy idea of having “God-given strength in your darkest moment” or something?”
You call it a “hazy idea”. Most Americans call it faith. And it’s what’s sustained our civilization for the past 2000 years. Stop whining. Maybe if you had a little more faith, you’d be a little more joyful and a little less whiny.
albedo
Probably. If I had a jetpack, I’d be able to fly, too.
war bird
Lets let the people decide and not some damn idiot judge its about time the peoples rule came over that of a bunch of black robed tyrants
Joey
Yeah, some damn idiot judge who has all the facts layed in in front of him/her and can make an informed decision, which is his/her job and is clearly layed out in the Constitution. Yeah, better to let the uninformed, quick to judge public make important decisions. Because, as we all know, the masses always know what’s best.
If you’re trying to say that Christianity sustained our civilization, which by using the 2000 year thing I’m assuming you are, you need to open up a history book. If anything, our civilization is here in spite of Christianity, thanks to the Dark Ages, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, and of course the ever-present war on science. Thank God those Muslims made sure all the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans wasn’t lost during those times, eh?
Joey
DougJ, having just read your previous posts, I’ve just come to the realization that you are one of the crazies! I’m sorry, I typically don’t respond to your type. Please disregard the section in my previous comment that pertained to you.
DougJ
“Please disregard the section in my previous comment that pertained to you.”
And just when you almost had me convinced! ;)
bains
I found this most interesting:
Gee, I didn’t realize we no longer lived in a representative democracy. Never again shall we waste the commoner’s monies letting them voice their opinion to those that enact the laws…
Ancillary, nor shall we listen to them when they voice their opinions upon whom shall sit upon such august courts…
Darleen
I’m suprised that no one realizes that there have been attempts to get this land sold to private parties and even that was challenged and struck down by the courts
BECAUSE some people are absolutely obsessed with erradicating the religious history and sentiments of this country.
Smash, who lives in San Diego, has posted on this before PLUS he offers TWO other historical monuments with “religious” symbols on them. Are they on religious bigot hit list?
The ACLU has infamously gone around the country browbeating little municipalities (and some not so little..ie County of Los Angeles) to remove “offensive” Xtian symbols from county seals…even when the history of such a municipality is that the town was FOUNDED by religious people. The ACLU certainly didn’t protest the Goddess Pomona in the middle of the LA county seal, but hell’s bells, the tiny cross at the upper right side representing LA’s Franciscan heritage HAD TO GO!!
Sheesh, I would at least hope such bigot would be HONEST about their anti-religious prejudice instead of hiding behind stupid “oh it might offend that guy over there”
This is simple Bowdlerizing of American history and blatant intimidation of anyone that dares breath they actually have “deep religious” beliefs … unless of course, those beliefs are anything BUT Christianity or Judaism.
Dr. Weevil
albedo asks “Who’s ‘gleefully chopping down crosses?'” What does he think is going to be done to this one? Opponents of the cross say they don’t care about a 76% vote, and it’s not enough to sell or give the land on which it stands to the Federal government, the cross itself must be removed. Unless they’re planning to use dynamite, that does seem to imply some sort of chopping, sawing, hacking, or bashing with a ball and chain. I didn’t say they want to chop down all crosses, but they sure as Hell want to chop down this one.
jg
I think his point was that it was a waste of money to put something to vote that can only be decided in court. Not that voting is a waste of time. You have to be of a certain mindset to see it he way you put it.
Darleen
You have to be of a certain mindset to see it he way you put it.
Yep, the kind of person who doesn’t believe in democracy except in allowing the plebes their bread and circuses.
The important stuff? Gotta be the poltically estute mullahs in black robes who know whats best for the rest of us.
albedo
Look, I’ve said before that I don’t give a tinker’s f*ck about this case, or most cases like it. As an atheist living in America, believe me, I’ve gotten pretty inured to every kind of religious display. I feel neither offended nor oppressed by the existence of this crucifix 120 miles south of my house.
That said, there’s a reason people are pursuing this case beyond, or in addition to, anyway, mere pettiness or hatred of religious icons. And that reason is that this display is unconstitutional, full stop. It doesn’t matter what I, the ACLU, or the SoCal Society of Satanists think about it. It’s a religious display favoring Christianity on land meant for public use. Okay? End of story.
ppGaz
As a passionate secularist, I have to say, I don’t find the cross to be offensive. I have no problem with it.
What the phony-baloney Dobonsites fail to recocgnize is that this sort of thing only became a problem when they decided to start preaching that there were two Americas, a “good one” that is “christian” and right-thinking, and a bad one, which is everyone else. When they started acting as if they were “vicitims” because other people resisted their bullshit.
Were it not for their obnoxious ways, the cross would probably attract little if any opposition. This is what happens when whiney psuedo-vicitms stir up a bunch of ill will that serves no purpose and adds no value to anything …. and then decides to impose its shithead views on everyone who doesn’t agree with them. Suddenly the cross becomes a symbol of the silly fight, and suddenly … here you are.
Too bad. The cross actually looks good there.
Darleen
albedo
Then tell me why when every effort has been made to put the land under the “offensive Xtian symbol” into private hands (the memorial itself has always been privately maintained) that the same ostensible “constitutionalists” have FOUGHT the sale/transfer?
Tell me where a tiny cross on the LA County seal, representing the religious history of the area amounts to an ESTABLISHMENT of religion?
Otherwise, please go read the First Amendment again.
Darleen
ppGaz
I must have missed it, did Dobson rape Madeline O’Hare?
Joey
Haha, well damn.
Mike
“You can’t see it as secularists trying to prevent something from being forced on them?”
Something that’s been forced on them for 92 years?
So why is it all of a sudden an issue?
“What the phony-baloney Dobonsites fail to recocgnize is that this sort of thing only became a problem when they decided to start preaching that there were two Americas, a “good one” that is “christian” and right-thinking, and a bad one, which is everyone else. When they started acting as if they were “vicitims” because other people resisted their bullshit.”
Bullshit. It started being a “problem” when secularists declared war on Christians back in the 60s and 70s by fighting to remove prayer from schools among other things. Secularists started this war, not Christians. Everybody wants to pretend that the loony Right just started this fight in the last few years. This is a blatant lie. All they started doing is fighting back. At least TRY to be honest occasionally.
Sojourner
Absolutely! Damn the founding fathers for the first amendment. What were they thinking?
Jeff G
I don’t understand how this memorial — cross or no — establishes religion.
And sure, I’d vote for an atheist, provided he was committed to reading the Establishment Clause as it was intended to be read.
albedo
“Then tell me why when every effort has been made to put the land under the “offensive Xtian symbol” into private hands (the memorial itself has always been privately maintained) that the same ostensible “constitutionalists” have FOUGHT the sale/transfer?
Tell me where a tiny cross on the LA County seal, representing the religious history of the area amounts to an ESTABLISHMENT of religion?
Otherwise, please go read the First Amendment again.”
I have no idea why that transfer has been fought. As should have been abundantly clear from my last thirty or so posts, I don’t claim to represent or find kinship with this particular case or the people involved. And you’ve provided no additional information, so I have nothing to go on.
I’m not a constitutional scholar, nor do I claim to be, but the speed with which the city council assented to a change of seals once a lawsuit was threatened, would indicate to me that whether you or I like or not there was a solid constitutional case against the crucifix depicted on the old seal (and the goddess Pomona, also ditched). My guess is that putting one or two specific religious symbols on an official piece of governmentalia could have been viewed as preferential. But did the old, crucifix-y seal of the county (where I live) bother me? No, it didn’t.
As a parting shot, allow me to apologize on behalf of the entire non-Christian community for the vicious persecution you all have had to endure. Maybe someday you’ll overcome and we’ll elect a congressman, or, dare I say it, a President (!) that shares your values.
Darleen
albedo
There was no crucifix on the LA County seal.
And for someone ostensibly “not caring” one way or another, you also don’t seem too worried about historical revisionism.
Tell me… any other areas of such rewriting that don’t bother you? Say, the air-brushing of FDR’s pic of his famous cigarette-holder?
How much genuflecting to the Sect of the Easily Offended do we endure until our history/culture/public places are scrubbed clean enough?
Mike
“Bullshit. It started being a “problem” when secularists declared war on Christians back in the 60s and 70s by fighting to remove prayer from schools among other things. Secularists started this war, not Christians. Everybody wants to pretend that the loony Right just started this fight in the last few years. This is a blatant lie. All they started doing is fighting back. At least TRY to be honest occasionally.”
Sigh…
My comment was a bit much, I’m afraid.
Please everyone accept my apology, (been a long day, but that’s no excuse).
Wasn’t very “Christian” of me…:))
bains
As a fellow atheist, I dont find it so. And I think its a bit disingeneuious to say that you have no pony in the race given your statement.
Darleen
Sojouner
Teacher-lead prayer in school WAS “establishment.”
But from that O’Hare and followers were emboldened to start the Bowdlerization of America’s public square.
It’s bizarre that the ACLU champions the rights of gangbangers and seeks to destroy the Boy Scouts.
bains
NO, my point is that the courts should be populated by the will of the people. It is interesting to me that so many rail against the tyranny of the majority while embracing the tyranny of the minority. Not that either is right, just the inherent hypocrisy…
Otto Man
Do you even know the history behind that? It was a measure passed by Congress in 1956 solely as a way to differentiate America from the “godless, atheistic communists.” It’s a trapping of Cold War paranoia, put forth by people who believed if we just prayed hard enough the atom bombs might bounce off us.
Same with the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, by the way. That was put through in 1954. And the presidential prayer breakfasts, the congressional prayer room, etc. etc. All came about between 1952 and 1956.
These aren’t inherent parts of the United States as the Founders intended — notice, they didn’t put a mention of God in the Constitution — but rather the efforts of a bunch of Cold War politicians trying to beat each other in posturing over who was the bestest Christian out there. Sounds familiar.
I say this as a devout Catholic — the people who are whining that Christianity is “under attack” in a nation where Christians dominate every single thing really need to chill out. You’re not being oppressed, just because the entire country isn’t covered in Ten Commandment shrines, OK?
eileen from OH
I think you are mistaking the judiciary for the legislative. The judiciary should be completely and totally separate from the “will of the people”. They are sworn to uphold constitutional law and ignore the vagaries of popular opinion, which can twist and sway with the times. While I believe that considering the changing conditions of modern times does play into decisions (as in the Founders didn’t have the internet, for example), the will of the people, even if the majority, does not enter into it at all. If courts and judges must play to constituencies and must deliver opinions based on what the “majority” opinion at that time might be, then they are subject to the whims and fancy of public opinion at that time. Which renders their role to politicians rather than jurists.
It is exactly BECAUSE the minority must be protected that we need the courts. The majority does not need that protection, if as we have now, one party controls the power of government. That, I think, is exactly why the Founders designed the separation of poweres.
We do not need courts that merely parrot the leanings of the party in power, or even the majority – regardless which side it is. It is why, we must, as a democratic society, learn to live with decisions we disagree with and abide by them, relying on an independent judiciary to deliver those opinions. And why we must, at all times, strive not to appoint jurists that agree with us, but are objective enough to render opinions that are consistent with law, rather than those who seek to reflect a popular opinion.
eileen from OH (stepping down from soapbox and reverting to usual smartass remarks)
ppGaz
Not that anyone thought they ever would … but the wingnuts just don’t get it.
I’ve spent a lot of time in La Jolla. The cross is visible for many miles, a local landmark. Nothing offensive about it.
But here’s what happened: Religious assholes decided that prayer in school — which is absolutely wrong, an absolute violation of the proper line between church and state — was their “right”, and anyone who opposed it, was opposing “christianity.” This Big Lie persists to this day — just look at this thread. But, it is in fact a lie. Opposing prayer in school has nothing to do with opposing “christians”, it has to do with that proper line. Call it an arguable point if you like, but whatever you call it, proponents of school prayer have no “right” to impose their view on anyone else. People who want to pray have ample opportunity and space for prayer. Nobody is opposing prayer, they’re opposing the imposition of religious dogma by the government.
So here we are. A nice landmark, turned into a bone of contention by the asshole pseduo-christians …. who will still to this day try to blame everyone but themselves for the sorry situation they’ve created. Now the nice landmark is a battle symbol. Its real value, diminished by the fuckheads who pretend to be defending a value.
It never had to be this way.
Otto Man
Agreed. The only way the “will of the people” enters the equation is when the people, through their representatives, amend the Constitution. Until that happens, the judiciary only has the Constitution, as is, to go by.
And to pre-empt the usual conservative complaint about “activist judges” “legislating from the bench,” remember that the all-time leader in overturning the “will of the people” is none other than the Rehnquist Court. They’ve overturned more acts of Congress than any other court in history, even the evil Warren Court.
Alright, I’ll step down from the soapbox too.
neoliberal
But from that O’Hare and followers were emboldened to start the Bowdlerization of America’s public square.
Of all the secularists I’ve known (myself included), I’ve never met anyone who goes in for this sort of historical revisionism. That cross doesn’t bug me (although I think it should be sold to a private group, not maintained with public money); neither does “In God We Trust”, crosses in veterans’ cemetaries, or the old LA County seal. The Pledge. . . well, I can think of all sorts of reasons to do away with it entirely. Politicians acknowledging God – I think it’s shameless pandering, no worse than anything else they do regularly.
The vast majority of us don’t mind most of this stuff because the Bible-thumpers aren’t using these anachronisms to remind us how virtuous they are and how the rest of us are going to burn in the fiery depths of hell for all eternity. Unlike, say, prayer in schools, Roy’s Rock, or creationism in public schools. Actually, it’s unclear to me why these idiots aren’t focusing on that instead of some 92-year-old plot of land.
It’s bizarre that the ACLU champions the rights of gangbangers and seeks to destroy the Boy Scouts.
Um, no. The ACLU opposes different forms of the coercive use of government power (although they can be awfully inconsistent with their Constitutional fundamentalism). This includes the unbridled use of law enforcement, and the use of public facilities to support discriminatory facilities. I see no contradiction here. The ACLU does not choose the cuddliest clients (Nazis in Skokie?), it goes after what it perceives as government acting unfairly. Deal.
As far as the Boy Scouts go, I’m an Eagle Scout (wasn’t always this much of an atheist, and my troop didn’t care much anyway), and I still think highly of the experience. I do not support their policy towards gays or atheists, mostly because I think it’s wrecking the organization. That said: much as I sympathize with James Dale, the Scouts should be able to set their own membership policies, and cities should be able to exclude them from public facilities as a result. (And I won’t give any money to the organization until they change their minds.)
Darleen
Ottoman
As a Catholic you might be interested to know that states funded religious schools through about the mid-1800’s and it was only with the high immigration of Catholics that suddenly they grew a little startled and stopped such funding.
And the extra-Constitutional citation of “separation of church and state” didn’t happen until 1947 (based on a line from a Jefferson letter).
What started in the 1800’s as demoninational bigotry has evolved into a general hostility by the cultural elite towards those of faith in general.
And puhleeze, don’t sneer at the efforts of “Cold War Politicians” to want to demonstrably showcase the difference between American culture and the abomination that was the Soviet Union.
How I do NOT miss drop-drills.
eileen
You are correct about an independent judiciary. However, I want them to be consistent with the law when the law is consistent with the Constitution. And even members of SCOTUS themselves can go beyond the scope of the Constitution, where upon it will be up to The People to correct them. See Kelo.
Contrary to what Nancy Pelosi said, when a judge speaks, it is NOT like “God Himself has spoken.”
Defense Guy
I don’t understand. Is it the Christians fault that the nice landmark is a bone of contention, and if so how does it relate to school prayer in any way? How are the 2 related, is the issue with the cross a retalitory measure?
Otto Man
Thanks, Darleen, I’m well aware of the history of parochial schools.
But as a Catholic I’m also aware of the ways in which Catholic students were treated in the first half of the 20th century in public schools by Protestant teachers. Mocked for the ashes on Ash Wednesday, not eating meat on Fridays, and for everything in between. There’s a reason Catholic parochial schools had their greatest growth during this period — the religious indoctrination and intimidation in the public schools had simply become too much.
I oppose the endorsement of religion in the public schools, and other public places, not in spite of my faith, but because I know enough to understand that my kind used to be on the outside. Now that we’re welcomed by the “Judeo-Christian” majority, I’d like to look out for the folks who took our place as the new outsiders.
Darleen
Ottoman
How is the Cabrillo Monument in San Diego an “endorsement” of religion? How is the cross on the LA County seal? Boy Scouts camping in Balboa Park? Christmas decorations on the streets of Eugene, Oregon? How is Bowlderizing school textbooks to bury or eliminate how religion and religious people participated in the building of this country a GOOD and RIGHT and CONSTITUTIONAL thing?
Indeed, there are people who would have the California Missions razed because they are on “public” land.
And please don’t think you are an “insider”. The anti-Catholic invective against John Roberts is promising to get even nastier.
ppGaz
That’s okay.
I don’t understand why snacks come in packages that can only be opened with a knife.
jg
huh?
I figured someone would eventually bring up the fantasy that there is no separation of church and state in the constitution but I don’t understand how ‘Jefferson’ and ‘1947’ can be in the same sentence.
eileen from OH
Well, since God isn’t speaking to anyone personally that I know of (except my brother-in-law who insists on wearing Jesus t-shirts, even to formal functions because “God told him to.” ) I can’t speak to Pelosi’s remarks. But I do know that I ain’t a lawyer and until such time that I AM a lawyer and able to craft a winning argument and become a Constitutional expert, I hafta take the Court for what it does, regardless how stoopid it may seem to me. (Brown VS the Board of Ed wasn’t none to popular neither.) While you and I may agree that Kelo was wrong and while I CERTAINLY thought Bush V. Gore was wrong, that, by itself, should not be reason to demand that judges fulfill the ideological bent of one side or the other. The judicial process HAS to be independent of popular opinion.
Change must come through the legislative process and by being vigilant in choosing judges that are (not just to the SCOTUS but in any appointed position) independent jurists. And the only way to ascertain that is by examining their record and questioning them. Unfortunately, that process has become equated with “obstructionism”.
I no more want a judge given a blank check by Democrats/liberals than I want one annointed that way by Republicans.
My big beef right now is that it appears that the Dem/left/libs/whatever aren’t even supposed to ask questions. Bush won the election, he gets to pick judges and all of the rest of us can just STFU. They scream that it’s politics, but I for one want to KNOW stuff. I want to KNOW what Roberts is all about. It frustrates the crap out of me that asking freakin’ questions about someone that will be on the SCOTUS for a long, long, long time is somehow out of bounds.
eileen from OH
Otto Man
Way to change the subject. None of these are things I mentioned. And, like the supposed campaign of the ACLU to outlaw “Merry Christmas,” they’re probably the fevered imagingings of right-wing radio. (I’m an ACLU member, by the way, and the only mention I’ve ever seen of this supposed campaign against “Merry Christmas” has come from the mythmakers on the right.)
Like the other liberals here, I really don’t care about the cross at the cemetery, but if the right-wing nuts need their persecution fix so bad today that they want to make a federal case about it, I think the courts have no choice but to rule against it.
Could you name some? Because I’m sick of hearing about all the things the godless heathen liberals want to do, since none of it resembles reality.
Oh please. Are we going to get another round of right-wing talking points about how Catholics like Kennedy, Durbin, Leahy, etc. are all “anti-Catholic” because they oppose someone who happens to be Catholic for reasons entirely divorced from his Catholicism? I hope so, because it makes the right really look like morons, frankly.
Despite what that handful of bishops said last year, there’s no “right” political party for a Catholic to belong to. Yes, the Church is opposed to abortion and euthanasia, both of which are embraced by the left. But John Paul II also came out strong against the death penalty and the war in Iraq, and the Church has taken a stand on “social justice” that just doesn’t jibe with the GOP economic plan, regardless of those who tell you Jesus was a supply-sider. All Catholics in America are “cafeteria Catholics” when it comes to politics.
Alright, I’m getting cranky. Sorry. Time to go to bed.
Otto Man
In the 1947 case of Everson v. California, the opinion used the “wall of separation” phrase that had appeared in a letter from Jefferson. The underlying principle stands in the First Amendment — neither establishment of religion, nor deny the free exercise thereof, etc.
eileen from OH
One last post and then I’m going to bed. . .Because I’m an old broad (still cute as hell, but that’s another post) I distinctly remember when the huge controversy about JFK was BECAUSE he was Catholic. The big bugaboo was that he’d get his marching orders from the Pope. Now it appears that the big concern is that a public official WON’T.
eileen from OH (that bingo money all went for guns in the basement of churches, y’know.)
Darleen
eileen
Let John Roberts be held to the same standard that Ruth Ginsburg was. Ok?
Though given Leahy’s remarks today that they don’t even want a Sandra Day O’Connor type appointment totally disengenuous.
And if the Constitution can ONLY be interpreted by “qualifed Constitution experts” with a JD and bar card, we are doomed as a democratic republic..because you are handing over your voice to a Priesthood who has *the* corner on Constitutional truth.
No thanks.
and if Ottoman checks in I understand why you sidestepped me completely. No where in the establishment cause of the 1st amendment is a requirement that the public square be scrubbed of all religious speech. Indeed, the efforts to rid public places of religious symbols and to deny even citizens the rights to participate in private organizations on their own time (such as the effort in CA to forbid judges from any participation in the nefarious and subversive Boy Scouts) smacks of Sovietism and not of American lassiez-faire towards religions.
You don’t like a historical cross in a national park or on private land?
Butch up.
Otto Man
Yeah. I sidestepped you.
ppGaz
The lassiez-faire First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, unless a lot of whiny religious people complain that their religions aren’t getting enough respect, or rally to establish an official Bathosphere in which the appearance of the face of Jesus in a mayonnaise jar shall be accompanied by weeping and devotional prostration, or unless the whiny religious people demand that their approved prayers be dispensed in public schools at the expense of taxpayers who do not go to the whiny churches or workship the whiny faith, and just generally, whiny religious people can say or do anything they want because they are generally so sincere and are only trying really hard to do the right and Godly thing, so what we really mean is, Congress shall make no law respecting the resistance to any religion, especially the whiniest ones. Or whatever.
Mike S
I’m pretty easy going about religion because it’s done great things for people. I don’t care about religious props for the most part. But when I see the wingnuts start whining about how victimised they are and how the left wants to destroy ALL religion, I want to burn them at the stake.
You’re such an oppressed group that you have emergency sessions of congress to make sure a feeding tube is reincerted in a woman who has half a brain. You’re so oppressed that the President left his vacation early to sign it, something that he has never done before or since.
Spare me the whining. You are in full controll of the Republican party and with that, all branches of government. Maybe if you didn’t wail at every perceived transgression, while trying to make me adhere to everything you all have decided that the bible demands, I’d give a damn.
Darleen
Wow Mike S
Is this where you say you think that euthanasia when there are NO written instructions wishing such is just peachy keen for you?
Just what other inconvenient profoundly disabled people shall we spare you from?
ppGaz
Yes they are. According to figures compiled by Mapquest, self-reported christianity is at 84% in the United States, down from the 150% goal the Founders had in mind when they created the United States of Jesus Christ.
(As stolen from my own post to another thread).
Apparently, that pesky 16% is just one mean bunch, oppressing that helpless 84% and generally rubbing their noses in their self-declared victim status.
Darleen
BTW
With all the wonderful anti-religious invective being tossed about
Just What awful kind of “forcing of beliefs” have the nasty Xtian Zionists been engaged in?
Or did I miss the orders of the government requiring me to attend church? Or wear a burka? When did the re-education camps open?
Jaysus on a Pony, I am NOT a member of any religion but I wonder at the bunch of nancy boys on this thread who get the vapors over an almost 100 year old memorial w/successive crosses and finding out the Los Angeles had a religious history. I bet when the Christmas decorations come out you’re all cowering in a basement somewheres wimpering “take it away! take it away!”
meshugga shmucks
KC
Totally agree with you John. Sometimes I think people who want to litigate every vestige of religion out of the public sphere just want more religion in it.
Cassidy
You know, I really don’t have a problem with Christians. I just can’t eat a whole one. :)
republicanuk
It’s sad when a Canadian has to weigh in on American history, but I guess I have to.
1) Crosses are *historically* associated with graveyard memorials of the dead. Even by non-believers. (Jews being the principal exception) Did they poll the soldiers in Europe to find out if they wanted a cross, crescent, star of david, etc? Obviously not.
2) The ACLU gets government money for the Crusade (irony noted) against religion. If it stops, so will most lawsuits.
3) Nowhere in the constitution is anyone afforded the right not to be offended.
4) Establishment clause means Federal Government cannot dictate which Church (ie: denomination) is supreme. This was a remedy for intra-denomination infighting which was ongoing in Europe at the time of the Revolution.
5) States COULD and DID endorse particular denominations as “official”. This was not contrary to the constitution. Note separation of Federal vs. State rights rather than that of church and state.
6) Athiesm is trying to wedge its way into being the official ‘non-religious religion’ endorsed by the Federal and state governments. They perform the same function as a religion, without a god. (origin of man, purpose, views on death, worldview impacting behaviour of adherants, etc.) They are doing this by opposing and undermining any other person’s right to express religious ideas in any public form or fasion, with a particular emphasis on the Christian faith. Note the removal of the cross on the seal in California, while the referance to the pagan god remained.
7) People are looking for excuses to be offended, and then issuing lawsuits based on it. Note recent pledge case where non-custodial father brought case to supreme court because his Christian daughter was saying the pledge in school. (she had never complained about it.) It was wisely thrown out.
8) Why are we to assume that just because they are wearing a black robe they should be somehow MORE moral, and wise than the average person. The founding fathers did not think they were. The judiciary was created to be the least powerful of the branches, but due to judicial activism in the last 5 or 6 decades, has absolutely become the most powerful.
There are more, but that should keep the debate going for awhile.
DougJ
Ottow wrote: “Do you even know the history behind that? It was a measure passed by Congress in 1956 solely as a way to differentiate America from the “godless, atheistic communists.””
I know the history perfectly well. We won the Cold War, didn’t we? Isn’t that evidence enough that putting “In God We Trust” on the money was a good idea?
DecidedFenceSitter
I’m going to take issue with #8, the Judicial Branch is still the weakest branch. It can do nothing unless someone, who has been actually harmed by a law, brings a case to it.
The war powers act calls the being a prime, sane example of this (trust me I came up with several outrageous hypotheticals first). One side says it is unconstitutional, the other side says that it is constitutional. However, neither side wants to test it in court, so in limbo it remains. The Judiciary has no power to decide the matter. It is powerless.
Look at the Scopes Trial for another example of this. Scopes had to intentionally break the law so that the ACLU could defend him, and with the graces of the Dayton business folks, Scopes did so. Only at the point where Scopes was arrested for teaching evolution could the case be brought before the judiciary.
The judiciary has a weird place in the balance of powers. It is probably the most absolutely powerful branch, but it is the least able to bring its power to use. The passive nature of the judiciary is probably the biggest check on its powers, as impeachment and amendment of the Constitution are very difficult and ardurous activities.
Rocky Smith
We are guaranteed freedom OF religion in the Constitution, not freedom FROM religion. Let all faiths be represented and erect what they will. The attempt by atheists to remove all references to faith and God from the public arena tramples MY rights. Besides, if you don’t believe in God, what harm can a cross do to you? Ignore it just like you do God.
Cassidy
You know, this can all be settled if we have a specific class in school set up to expose students to all religions. That way they can learn about Islam, Bhuddism, Satanism, Wicca, Native American Shamanism, etc., as well as Christianity.
Somehow I don’t think all these “persecuted” Christians would agree to that. So much for equal representation.
DougJ
“The attempt by atheists to remove all references to faith and God from the public arena tramples MY rights.”
It’s almost like the rights of Christian don’t exist in the eyes of the black-robed tyrants who more or less run this country. The only thing we can be thankful for right now is that we finally have a president who BELIEVES. Let’s hope he can make the court over in his own image, as it were.
Don Surber
Great post (which is comment code for I agree with it 100%)
yet another jeff
One word, DougJ….
Goddammit.
ppGaz
Uh, no. Opposition is to government activity, not to “references to faith.”
It’s the government that is constrained by the first amendment. The people can cover the land with crosses and tablets displaying the Twenty Or So Commandments and the Koran and statues of Budda. You can wear a cross on your head. You can put Jesus stickers all over your car.
But the government can’t. Your assertion is incorrect.
Rocky Smith
But I can’t do it in a public place or I am trampling on an atheist. Therefore, his rights trump mine.
BinkyBoy
1) Government placed the “Under God” into the pledge to fight Red Communism. This was an unconstitutional act and should just be removed.
2) Fred Phelps is a rabid southern Christian, he hates diversity and he’s nuts. Thats pretty much the definition of neo-Con republican.
3) The ACLU is there to protect civil rights. It doesn’t matter if its Rush Limbaugh or some “gangbanger”. They play an important role in our society as just one more check and balance.
4) If my tax dollars are being used to install or maintain a religious monument or ideology, I have the right to fight that. If you don’t believe I have that right then you have crossed the line from conservative to fascist.
5) In the land deals to sell off the public land the state government is most likely required to offer the plot up for bid. Unfortunately, the religious state officials usually want to dictate who can buy it and who can’t. Thats illegal. The bidding process must be open to everyone.
6) Darleen is a fundamentalist, she’s no better than any Talibaner or Islamic fundie.
BinkyBoy
Rocky, do you want Piss Christ displayed on public lands? Since an atheist can’t do that, his rights don’t trump yours.
You have a persecution complex. I think they have a creme for that.
ppGaz
Uh, no. The rights of all are protected by preventing the government from usurping them. When “christians”, or Scientologists, can employ the government to pimp their religion at the public’s expense, then nobody’s rights are being protected.
That’s the whole point of the First Amendment clause. A point which about half the posters here seem never to have actually thought about.
the friendly grizzly
Darleen asks: “I must have missed it, did Dobson rape Madeline O’Hare?”
Good heavens, woman! Do you have any IDEA how much a new monitor is gonna cost me??!?!?
As for the subject at hand: I see no problem with the cross being there. But I agree with other posters; the Dobsonites run around sniveling about being soooo persecuted. Sooo oppressed.
Yeah, right.
The only religion in the country with a *paid* holiday for government workers. (So does the private sector but my tax dollars aren’t paying forit)
The one where their kids can take off a school day to practice their rituals and not be counted absent; the kids of those who practice religions not recognised by government get no such exemption.
I think what really bothers the Dobsonite wing of the Christian faith is that some of us with other, or no, religion still consider ourselves Americans and members of the society as a whole. In short, there went the neighborhood.
Tim F
What the bleeding hell are you talking about? That’s the polar opposite of a neocon. Phelps certainly hates Jews almost as much as he hates commies and of course gay people. Type A foamy-mouthed fundie. Neocons are a non-religious movement that contain numerous jewish leaders and studied in the school of Trotsky. Falwell, not a neocon except insofar as he feels obligated to support Iraq to keep his Movement Conservative street cred. Wolfowitz, neocon. Definitely not a fundie. This public service announcement has been brought to you by Chat Room Veterans for Truth.
Tim F
Wait, that acronym stinks. Call it ‘Chat Room Veterans for Common Sense.’
Mike S
Wingnuts.
Dior
Living in SD I can tell you that you’re pretty much right. It is an atheist shooting his mouth (and lawyer) off. This is one of those things that as a liberal I kind of feel for the Reds here in Kaliforneya. That said, it is public tax money going to pay for the maintnance of a religeous symbol. If the City would have just knokced the arms off of it instead of trying every back door scheme to try and give the land to a chrurch, sell the land (sans bid) to a church, and now trying to give it to the Feds, we would only be the laughing stock of the nation for strippers and councel men, city debt and Arnold (my Gov can take your Gov.. now that the Body retired) It does not change the fact that it is a symbol of ritualistic murder that Christians hold so dear.
Marcos
I agree with John wholeheartedly on this one. Spirituality is a personnal matter, and shouldn’t become a driving force in the public sphere. I personally am against organized religion in general. Spirituality should be discussed between equals, not consumed by congregations from one monolithic source.
I don’t understand why the religious right is so insecure with their individual spirituality, that they fear they must advance and promote it in order for it to survive.
ppGaz
Well, it’s because they’ve been told to be, by manipulators who see it as a win-win. The manipulator gets the fealty of the manipulated, and carves out a coalition with which to do battle with the unmanipulated.
Pat Robertson, Fallwell, Dobson …. it’s pretty obvious what they are doing. They are running an industry.
It’s about money, and power. Simple as that.
Sojourner
I agree. We should do everything in our power to continue the Bush administration plan to make this country as devisive as possible. Screw the sensitivities of the minorities. Christianity is the dominant religion and everyone else should conform or get out.
As to which version of Christianity… that should be determined by the president.
Sojourner
So tell me… who should decide which prayer should be used? Should the teacher decide? Should the state decide? How about we take turns? I look forward to the day when the Muslims, the Wiccans, and the Hindus get their turn.
Gangbangers? Huh?
Yeh, it’s really a shame that the Boy Scouts were challenged on their discriminatory practices.
Sojourner
Are there government-sponsored worship services for the saints whose names the towns bear?
ppGaz
ACLU defends against government overreaches of power, which threaten the rights of everyone. Typically, those overreaches are made against people or groups who are not popular. Nasty, even.
But you see, unless you protect the protections at the fringes, where the unpopular people are, you lose them. If you wait until the protections are threatened for the ordinary, popular people ….. it’s too late.
There’s a reason why the phrase goes “equal justice for all.” “All” means all, including the people you don’t like. Otherwise, what you get is “unequal justice for all” and that’s when the American Experiment is over.
Sojourner
Yeh, it’s much better to flaunt our superior religiosity than our silly Constitutional principles.
Sojourner
Bush made that impossible. Hatch suggested Ginsburg to Clinton so her nomination was inherently bipartisan. Bush didn’t do that.
Otto Man
Sure. Ginsburg freely answered questions and frankly admitted her opinions on Roe v. Wade and privacy rights. Will Roberts do the same, or will he follow the example of Clarence Thomas and claim to have no opinion about anything?
ppGaz
Yes, but.
The opinions of judges are a conundrum. A good judge leaves her opinions at the door, and rules according to the law. And that’s all law, including case law and precedent, not some phony “originalist” view of law.
But the more relevant point here is that every prospective judge is correct in saying “I can’t tell you how I’d rule in a particular case.” One hopes that she’d say that, and mean it.
The judges you have to worry about are ones who say that and don’t mean it. If their minds are already made up, then you aren’t getting judging, you’re getting legislation. The whole point of judging is to weigh the issues in each case on their own merits. Otherwise, you could have trained monkeys sit on the court. Don’t tell George Bush that, though. He might try to nominate one of these famous apes …
FamousChimps
Sojourner
But you can ask them their opinions of previous cases and their views on precedent and what constitutes settled law.
ppGaz
Yes. Do you suppose Roberts is rehearsing his answers as we speak?
Defense Guy
Of course, any lawyer worth his/her salt would simply state that they are on the side of settled law and therefore agree with it, until such a time as the legislature changes it.
jg
I’m sure it won’t be catholicism so do I have to leave?
neoliberal
The ACLU gets government money for the Crusade (irony noted) against religion. If it stops, so will most lawsuits.
Where do you people come up with this stuff? I heard the same thing from a Republican coworker and I wasted thirty minutes trying to convince him he was wrong. (He still didn’t believe me, just smirked and said “well, I’m sure they do get tax dollars.”) This is blatantly false, and I have absolutely no idea where such a meme started.
albedo
“But I can’t do it in a public place or I am trampling on an atheist. Therefore, his rights trump mine.”
I think this little logical fallacy more or less encapsulates the christian rights’ reflexive view on the subject. “They took down the ten commandments in that Alabama courthouse, therefore the atheists have won.”
This view incorrectly presupposes that atheism is an absence of ideas, when in fact, it is the very active idea that there is no God. So, to all you Christians, us atheists will have won when there are giant monuments saying “There is no God” on public property. That is, unless the absence of overt declarations of faith in the public square somehow diminishes the presence of God in your life – but your faith couldn’t possibly be that shallow, right?
To sum up
The monument in question: pretty, dubious legality
Grandfather clauses for similar old monuments: probably a good idea
The ACLU: annoying sometimes, but necessary
The christian right: prepetually aggrieved
This comment thread: way too long
jg
The ‘black robed tyrants’ were appointed by representatives we elected. The reps pick them based on the belief they are picking judges we would want. So blame your congressman for not knowing you wanted a judge that would poll the community before ruling if a law is constitutional.
Yup Bush believes. And the RNC uses that as a means of getting you to continue to vote for assholes. No way you would vote against someone who is so pious right?
I don’t want the courts to be made over in the image of a spoiled rich kid/born again former alcoholic and drug user.
albedo
my ability to spell “perpetually”: not so good
W.B. Reeves
As far as the specific case in question, the historic value of the monument seems the most compelling argument on the pro side. However, it does seem inequitable that the taxes of non-Christians should be used to maintain a sectarian symbol.
Its unfortunate that the local politicians muddied the waters by attempting to illegally transfer the property to a Church. If the Cross were so important to folks in the area, I imagine that it would have been possible to raise the money to purchase it by open bid. If not, it would suggest that local devotion to the symbol has been overrated.
What I find disappointing about this whole debate is the degree to which both Christians and non-Christians have allowed themselves to be manipulated by Theocrats such as Dobson and his cronies. Dobson and his fellow travellers in Dominionist theology do not define the whole of Christianity anywhere except in their own bigoted mindset. Yet here, as in the debate at large, even their opponents seem willing to forward this false propaganda.
The debate is not between Christians and non-Christians, nor even the religious and the secular. The debate is between those who believe that the state should remain neutral on matters of religion and those who do not. Dobson, James Kennedy, Gary Demar and others of their ilk have the explicit goal of superceding Civil Law with the dogma of their own, narrowly sectarian, splinter Calvinist sect. As such, their claims to representing the full “body of Christ” are fraudulent.
That they have enjoyed such success as they have is largely due to the opposition falling in with this fraud. Christians who sup with this lot best use a long spoon.
RW
John, I tip my cap to you.
The ability to turn the key and get the same folks to scream about the “Dobsonites” and the “neocon Christian wing” time after time after time after time on post after post after post after post is quite admirable. When in doubt and when there is no news, just thow out some red Dobson meat to the bubbas and they’ll never get tired.
Kudos.
mac Buckets
We have truly become a Nation of Wussies when we take seroiusly people who whine that we should destroy traditional monuments in order to protect some imagined Right Not To Be Offended. The guy behind this lawsuit, Humanist Association of San Diego President Phil Paulson (whose mascot is the dolphin, because the dolphin eats the Christians’ mascot, the fish…sigh), only seeks to annoy Christians with his whining contrarianism. It’s childish and destructive with no upside. Does anyone think tearing down the monument will really improve Phil’s quality of life? Of course not — he’ll just find some other cross or manger scene (or city name) to whine about in order to pretend to be oppressed.
Most people get offended numerous times every day. Grown-ups learn to live with it. Paulson should take another bonghit and go celebrate a solstice somewhere with his “intellectual freedom unless it’s religious” buddies.
Sojourner
Yes. Do you suppose Roberts is rehearsing his answers as we speak?
albedo
The “there’s no right not to be offended” meme is such baloney. Look, if you lived across the street from this Paulson guy, you could erect a forty-foot high cross on your front yard, offend the crap out of him, and there’s nothing he could do about it.
He can, however, do something about the offense he’s taken to this monument. It is a legal misuse of public money and land.
Does that mean that I would undertake getting the monument removed? No, I would not. I agree that it’s frivolous. But it’s not about some fictive “right not to be offended” that everyone knows doesn’t exist.
I might also add, that if you’re a Christian (not saying you are), it’s pretty easy to shrug your shoulders and say “what’s the big deal?” Imagine if the giant cross was a giant upside-down cross, or obelisk reading “There is no God.” Christians whine and rail all the time about things like this without realizing how good they have it.
Sojourner
To echo ppGaz: Where do you draw the line? At monuments? Voluntary prayer in the public schools? Mandatory prayer in the schools? Tax dollars supporting religion? The teaching of ID in schools? The re-definition of science to be belief-based? Strict limitations on science based on religious views?
This monument fight would die an early death if it weren’t for folks like Dobson and Moore. So, although I agree that the monument isn’t a huge deal, I prefer that there be a fight over it. So then when the righteous right complain, we can say “Okay, you got one. But that’s it.” Each time they win, they move the bar. It’s important to stand up to them and make them stop.
Defense Guy
No, because what you are advocating is minority rule rather than just protection. No one has a right to not be offended, because it is just to easy to do so. If the majority of the population is fine with the cross, then that should be the end of it.
The reason we do not call this an example of the tyranny of the majority is because no one is being opressed by what is an expression of faith for the faithful and a mere decoration or historical marker for the not.
albedo
“No, because what you are advocating is minority rule rather than just protection. No one has a right to not be offended, because it is just to easy to do so. If the majority of the population is fine with the cross, then that should be the end of it.”
That makes no sense. A majority of the population could be fine with eating babies, but that wouldn’t make it legal. What the majority wants in this case is immaterial. What’s at issue is constitutional case law regarding religious displays paid for by public tax dollars on public land.
Defense Guy
You think this is the only use of public money for the preservation of religous symbolism? Not even close. It’s everywhere and only lately has this even become an issue.
The establishment clause only states that the federal government cannot establish a state religion. It does not put limitations on the expenditure of public dollars to preserve historical references to the divine or limit the governments ability to finance through tax breaks religous based institutions. It does not state that the government and G-d cannot even be in the same room together, and it does not state that we should be acting like the taliban taking sledgehammers to old Buddhist symbols.
albedo
Yes, and the government spending tax dollars and public land on a particular religion’s iconography is usually interpreted as “establishing” said religion, although certainly not always.
If this thing goes to court, I do not claim to know how it would turn out. As previously stated, I think the “historical monument/grandfather clause” idea is workable.
The issue I’m taking is with all of these other straw man arguments thrown into the mix to obfuscate what is a pretty simple, if incredibly complex, legal point. It is not about “a right not to be offended” and it is certainly not about persecuting Christians.
albedo
And please, enough with the Taliban comparisons already. Comparing the occasional legal challenging the Christian hegemony takes in America to Buddhism’s treatment under the Taliban is completely ridiculous.
Defense Guy
I am referring to the act of removing it. In that the comparison is spot on. At it’s base, it is one small group dictating to the larger what is acceptable use of public funds and land for expression. We allow the KKK to hold rallies on public land, and hold up NAMBLA criminal guidebooks as protected speech, a little religion or attempted moral symbolism isn’t too much to ask or expect.
Otto Man
Are you serious? The majority was fine with slavery and segregation, too.
The majority, about 2/3 of the country, thinks abortion rights should be upheld by the Supreme Court. Should the pro-life people shut up, too?
Mark
Ah Defense Guy, we meet again. I see your knowledge of constitutional law hasn’t grown at all. You’re absolutely wrong on all three of your points:
1. This 1st Am issue has been around forever; definately since the beginning of the Republic. Look it up in your book of Founder’s quotes. You could say Thomas Jefferson started it with his “wall between church and state” commment.
2. The Establishment clause has long been interpreted to restrict gov’t funding of one faith over another. Your examples are in the grey area, but the Mt. Soledad cross is NOT faith-neutral, so it can’t be on public land. This has been the conclusion of the federal courts, on this very issue.
3. Funny you should bring up the Taliban. They look more like the Christian fundamentalists insisting that the U.S. gov’t be free to make America a monotheistic state, not those of us asking for gov’t neutrality on religion.
albedo
“I am referring to the act of removing it. In that the comparison is spot on.”
Well, since us atheistic types aren’t running around dynamiting every cross we lay our beady little eyes on, I’d have to respectfully disagree. And go so far as to suggest you’re making the comparison more for its emotional impact than for its basis in reality.
“At it’s base, it is one small group dictating to the larger what is acceptable use of public funds and land for expression.”
Yes, and the name of that group is the founding fathers.
NAMBLA guidebooks and KKK rallies have absolutely zero, zilch, nada to do with this. They are not spending public monies nor are they permanently erecting iconography, etc. Christians are allowed to gather on public land, too, believe it or not. Seriously, how many straw man arguments can you throw at this thing? Anxiously awaiting the old hoary “do you want Los Angeles’ name changed?” chesnut to be hauled out yet again.
Anyway, I’m tired of trying to convince people whose religion is currently running the country that they’re not a beleaguered minority. Over and out.
Mark
I’m a San Diego resident who just voted against the transfer of the cross from the city to the feds. Why? Because it’s a pointless exercise.
The city already lost in court. A federal judge has ordered the removal of the cross, as a violation of the 1st Amendment. Now because of misleading statements by the fundies, the good folks of SD believe they have voted to save the cross by giving the land to the federal gov’t. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Sorry, but moving the cross from municipal public land to federal public land doesn’t solve the Establishment problem. Still the gov’t promoting religion. The courts have spoken. The cross will come down.
There should have been a public auction, where the highest bidder could keep the cross without any Constitutional problems. Too bad the fundies blocked that avenue, only to raise $100K to get this federal transfer on the special election ballot. San Diego politics- it never makes sense!
DougJ
I’ll take the San Diego city government over the feds any day.
W.B. Reeves
Sounds as though there is an agenda at work other than saving the monument. While transfering the property to the Federal Government would’nt resolve the establishment clause issue, it certainly would raise the profile of the case. Further opportunities for massive fundraising with the bonus being that the Feds would be drawn into the case on the pro-monument side.
Ken Hahn
Would any of the anti-cross posters have trouble with a menorah? A star of David? A crescent and star? A Buddha? I seriously doubt it. Must we change the names of St. Louis and St. Paul? ( Or for that matter Mecca CA? ) If you are so insecure in your beliefs that a cross at a memorial offends you then I pity you. A recognition that those who died to a large degree believed in something that gave their deaths meaning is not an imposition of those beliefs on you.
When the antireligious have enough guts to go after something meaningful, say the Declaration of Indepence, either in court on at the ballot, I’ll have some respect for them. Attacking symbols is just sniping.
We have a Hindu Temple up the street. If they convince the Placentia City Council to erect a statue of Krishna on the lawn at City Hall, so be it. It doesn’t threaten me or you. There is a Mosque just accross the freeway in Anaheim. If they convince the City to put up a stone Koran by in a park, so what? If the local Jewish congregations convince Orange County to build a Giant Torah by the courthouse, how am I harmed?
I am becoming convinced that the iconoclasts are really afraid that there might be a God, or that someone else might have the right idea about Him that they must remove any reference or reminder. You might eventually remove all the symbols, but you’ll never remove faith or doubt. And those doubts will still be there in the dark.
Marc
Doubt it all you want, but the same arguments would and have been made against those symbols.
Great, back to this idiocy. We’ve discussed this already.
Insecure? We’re not the ones who want to wallpaper every inch of public, taxpayer supported land with the iconography of one religious sect. I have crosses in my home and my church, and I seem to handle those just fine.
Right, which is why something like Arlington, with individual crosses, stars of David, Islamic crescents, etc., is perfectly fine. But the One-Cross-Fits-All mentality isn’t.
Convince yourself of whatever you’d like, but this idea that it’s some horde of God-hating atheists out to oppress the poor Christians is just part of the persecution complex of the Religious Right. Plenty of religious people (me included) don’t want these symbols on public land.
Sorry to interject. You and the strawmen you’ve created were having a perfectly fine argument. Go ahead.
dlnevins
Defense Guy, the reason this sort of thing has only become an issue recently is simply because it was only recently that non-Protestants finally gained enough political power to make it an issue. I guarantee you, they didn’t like it before now, either; it’s just that they simply lacked the power to make their voices heard.
That monument isn’t simply a war memorial; it’s also a reminder of the fact that for most of this country’s history Christianity (and specifically Protestant Christianity) held an undeserved position of privilege in the eyes of the government. That is changing now because the demographics of this nation are changing. Who knows what the dominant religious beliefs of this nation will be in the future? That ought to be reason enough to avoid building such edifaces on public property from this point on.
As for what to do about the ones already built: I’m fine with either transferring them to private ownership or finding a way to grandfather them in (if they are of genuine historic importance), if either of those options can be done legally.
Liz
Symbols evolve over time (much like language).
The cross is no longer a strictly religious symbol.
For many, it is just a symbol, placed at graves, in honor of that person’s life. For some friends of mine, it is another piece of pointy silver around the neck of the punk set. The cross symbol no longer belongs only to Christians.
After all, Christians borrowed dates for holy days and other symbols from the pagans of their day…this happens, things change hands.
Ergo, it’s just plain cruel to remove mere grave markers and memorials. It needlessly upsets people, probably people who couldn’t even explain the Christian meaning for the symbol.
What ever happened to rest in peace…
jg
They died for this country. This country’s symbol isn’t a cross.
ppGaz
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
San Diego Govt Woes
Sojourner
I’ll believe this when I see it worn by a Jew (not the Jews for Jesus ilk) or a Muslim.
DougJ
Next thing you know the liberals will be trying to outlaw hot-crossed buns! BTW, I’ve seen many Jewish people eating these, sojourner, so maybe you should start believing the cross is no longer a religious symbol
ppGaz
How about
DougJwith a line through it …. religious symbol?Sojourner
What is a hot-crossed bun?
DougJ
Good one, ppGaz. I mean that in all sincerity.
Sojourner, are you not familiar with the hot-crossed bun song we all sang as children?
Sojourner
Nope.
albedo
Wow. This thread has taken a truly strange turn.
ppGaz
It’s a DougJ thread.
Sojourner
Shhh. We’ve finaly found a topic that doesn’t drive Dougie over the edge.
DougJ
I don’t know how I can be expected to converse with someone who doesn’t know the hot-cross buns song. I can’t find any mp3’s of it being sung, but here’s a page that has a version played on recorder
http://www1.ocdsb.edu.on.ca/csdyweb/showcase/showcase2003-2004/toft/TryThis/Recorder/karate.html
The words are “hot cross buns, hot cross buns, one a penny, two a penny, hot cross buns”.
You’re welcome.
Sojourner
It sounds to me like a funky version of Three Blind Mice. But then I couldn’t hear it very well even with volume cranked all the way up.
Thanks!
DougJ
“It sounds to me like a funky version of Three Blind Mice.”
You’re right, it does. The tune is a little different, though.
Man, I need lay off the mescal.
Sojourner
Send it my way. All I’ve got is some cheap chardonnay in the frig.
Randolph Fritz
“But it sure is hard to understand how REASONABLE people would be offended by this.”
Suppose it were the crescent and star of Islam?
scs
If it were the crescent or the star of Islam (Wait, Islam has a star? I thought it was a moon. Oh you have it backwards, anyway…) I would be okay with that if I knew that a clear majority of the people buried there were Muslims or Jews. Perhaps there could be a smaller section with a cross for the Christian minority. But since that is not the case, and Christians are a majority in this country, I think that the monument at hand is fine. Let’s have a little recognition for as many people’s beliefs as we can.
scs
By the way I like “yet another jeff’s” idea of a time limit on challenging a religious symbol. I think 10 years is plenty.
Ken Hahn
Marc,
I read your post and was tempted to argue, but I won’t. You have a problem with the cross and I don’t. Just for the record, I never claimed to be a victim of any sort, nor did I ever mention persecution. I don’t think you’re attacking me by removing the cross, I just think you’re being a bit foolish. Accuse me of a persecution complex and of making up straw men if you will. Makes no difference.
You can recycle your opinion and claim it disproves mine, but all it proves is that we disagee. Sorry, I am not convinced.
Sojourner
Agree. Having a national Christian holiday is not nearly enough.
scs
Sorry, but this is a country based on recognizing the majority. You have a vote, the candidate wins with 49% of the vote, he wins, no matter how much the other 47% of the other folks can’t stand him. They just have to put up with him. Sound familiar? Anyway, this country is a majority Christian country (for now), there is nothing wrong in recognizing that, as long as we incorporate as much sensitivity to other religions and non religions as we can.
I also say, lets have more other religion religious holidays. The more holidays the better for me.
Rocky Smith
How about government sponsorship of “art” that appears as a crucifix in a jar of urine or a portrait of the Maddona made from dung?
Sojourner
The founding fathers would disagree.
W.B. Reeves
More to the point, is SCS saying that Gore actually won the Presidency in 2000? After all, he did get the majority of the votes.