Sunday, May 16, 2010

The Case of The Missing Cross



This is the Mojave Cross. Have you heard of it? It's been at the center of a U.S. Constitutional debate for the last 10 years. An April Supreme Court decision keeps the eight foot pipe cross on public property, at least until a lower court addresses some issues brought forth by our Supreme Court Justices. It is a conservative decision and it was close....five to four. This is seen as a win for those who wanted the cross to stay as it has since the late 30's.
A new twist,  ...Someone swiped the cross........ It's gone...... A National Park spokesman said that while there are no suspects, the thief could have been a scrap metal scavenger ...... HA.....The Desert Dispatch has since received a copy of an anonymous letter received by the Parks Department :
Here is what it said:
"1. The cross in question was not vandalized. It was simply moved. This was done lovingly and with great care.
2. The cross has been carefully preserved. It has not been destroyed as many have assumed.

3. I am a Veteran.

4. A small non-sectarian monument was brought to place at the site but technical difficulties prevented this from happening at the time the cross was moved to its new location.

5. The cross was erected illegally on public land in 1998 by a private individual named Henry Sandoz. Since then the government has actively worked to promote the continued existence of the cross, even as it excluded other monuments from differing religions. This favoritism and exclusion clearly violates the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

6. Anthony Kennedy desecrated and marginalized the memory and sacrifice of all those non-Christians that died in WWI when he wrote: 'Here one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles — battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.' The irony and tragedy of that statement is unique.

7. Justice Kennedy’s words in particular and others like them from the other Justices caused me to act.

8. At the time of its removal there was nothing to identify the cross as a memorial of any kind, and the simple fact of the matter is that the only thing it represented was an oddly placed tribute to Christ. This cross evoked nothing of the sort that Justice Kennedy writes of, it was in the end simply a cross in the desert.

9. Discrimination in any form is intolerable, as is hatred.

10. Discrimination or hatred based upon religion should be despised by all Americans, and offering that this event was caused by hatred or malice is simply ignorance of the actual intent.

11. Despite what many people are saying, this act was definitively not anti-Christian. It was instead anti-discrimination. If this act was anti-Christian, the cross would not have been cared for so reverently. An anti-Christian response would have been to simply destroy the cross and leave the pieces in the desert.

12. We as a nation need to change the dialogue and stop pretending that this is about a war memorial. If it is a memorial, then we need to stop arguing about the cross and instead place a proper memorial on that site, one that respects Christians and non-Christians alike, and one that is actually recognizable as a war memorial.

13. If an appropriate and permanent non-sectarian memorial is placed at the site the cross will be immediately returned to Mr. Sandoz.

14. Alternatively, if a place can be found that memorializes the Christian Veterans of WWI that is not on public land the Cross will promptly be forwarded with care and reverence for installation at the private site.

15. In short, this has happened because as Abraham Lincoln said: 'To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men.' Perhaps this was an inappropriate form of protest if so I humbly request your forgiveness and understanding for the actions that I have taken here."
Be assured ,the Christian zealots will have a replacement cross up soon showing us all that this is a "Christian Nation" and you all better fall in line if you know what's good for you. Meanwhile some National Park employee is thinking " "Goddamn, I'm low man on the totem pole here....there gonna make me sit  in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere and watch that damn cross. I just know it."


Jesus must be turnin' in his grave.

20 comments:

  1. Anonymous20 May, 2010

    Interesting update.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What is the point of your post ? You want Christianity removed from the united states ? Or are you going on the misguided assumption that our forefathers where godless men ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Many beliefs other than Christianity has a belief in a Supreme Being.It was the founders intention to permit all but promote none. A Christian Cross on public property......no.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous25 May, 2010

    there is no mention of christ in any of the founding documents

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous25 May, 2010

    Roll with it makes a myopic assumption that Non Christian equals "godless"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Congress, U. S. House Judiciary Committee, 1854

    Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle... In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity... That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.

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

    would anyone like to dispute this? I'll give you the reference it came from.
    Oops so much for this not intended to be a christian nation it just doesn't seem to square with what the Congress, U. S. House Judiciary Committee, 1854 said.

    hey lets try to rewrite history !

    Oh and before I get all those arrows in the back lets remember how tolerant we all are even to Christians.
    Here is the reference for those who really care. Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress (Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854), pp. 6-9

    karl said...

    Many beliefs other than Christianity has a belief in a Supreme Being.It was the founders intention to permit all but promote none. A Christian Cross on public property......no.

    It was never in dispute that many other beliefs has a supreme being. There are some that worship rats too. Perhaps in the eyes of some they consider rats to be supreme to them. Ok fine with me. as far as it being the founders intent to permit all but promote none. first of all substituting the word promote for the word establish gives a different meaning. the constitution as I recall says not to establish. you could start and establish Art in the market and I could promote it ( and I do ) I'm not the one who established it. so that is point one.
    you said permit all but promote none. So go ahead and permit the cross on the property and If you want to have a big rat God eating a hotdog next to it that's fine by me too. Seems folks get confused.
    We are supposed to have freedom of Religion and not freedom from religion.
    feel free to quote it to me if I got it wrong in the constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Humanist30 May, 2010

    Karl, It is people like Roll with it that spout "opinions" with no research and labels it fact. Until Roll does his homework he will continually spout out his nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  8. to Humanist's point:

    Sorry you missed it the first time but if you will go and read my post again you will see the reference where I did do my homework. But Here it is again


    Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress (Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854), pp. 6-9


    Sorry I can't put it in bold print so you don't miss it this time.

    Maybe you need to do a little homework.
    As far as my other nonsense as you put it, Are you talking about what I said concerning the constitution not using the word promote but really uses the word establish ?
    Is that it ? please be more clear as to my nonsense instead of trying to be so general and dismissive.


    You never know I may see the error of my ways.

    Go ahead do you homework and show me.
    so far I have my references and you have none so far.
    All you have is a blank sheet of paper you are working from.
    It's OK I do understand some just like to sling the mud and run.

    ReplyDelete
  9. New York Jew31 May, 2010

    That poor man ,roll with it. He really believes that there can be "no substitute for christianity"
    He also confuses a 140 year old congressional report with mandated law.

    ReplyDelete
  10. To your point New york Jew,

    First of all thanks for pointing out I did my research at least you saw it where the other guy just ignored it.
    Where did I ever say That there is no substitute for Christianity ?

    You have the right to any religion you like .

    I stand by that. You have a free choice.
    I'm trying to make this as clear as possible.

    Did I not say in my comments that if someone wanted to worship a rat god and put it next to the cross on public land go ahead.

    You may worship any god you like. I'm all for it.

    I'm also all for YOU to have the Freedom to practice any Religion you wish.

    But I also expect the same right .

    Please get your facts right.

    point 2:
    Where in the world do you see me saying that congressional report was mandated Law ?!

    You really do have trouble with getting your facts right don't you.

    It is a statement and it merely reflects the feelings of how they
    and the forefathers of this county felt.
    Period.
    No law.

    Hope that clears it up for you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous01 June, 2010

    not very bright this guy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. And your brilliant analysis comes from what ?

    It’s not surprising when people can’t articulate their debate with facts they just make personal attacks and Insults. What is your next brilliant comeback , something like you’re ugly and your momma dresses you funny.
    Is that your next one To throw at me? Sorry I stole your thunder. Come back when you can talk about the issue.
    Where are all those who preach tolerance ? I have never talked about anyone’s religion or lack of it.
    You do what you want. I do what I want. It’s simple. Yet some like you get so upset.
    Where is your tolerance ?

    ReplyDelete
  13. A strict Constitutionalist02 June, 2010

    Mr. Roll
    You are confusing the issue of the religious beliefs of our country's founders and their intention of separation of church and state.

    Most of these men were of christian beliefs yet the passage of the first amendment affirmed that we are free to practice our beliefs without interference of government. Great Britian had an official religion, The Church of England.This was not to be in the new nation, The United States of America.

    At the same time, these authors of the Bill of Rights were careful to avoid the appearannce of favoritism by not permitting the government to celbrate and memorialize one religion over another. While you favor all religions being able to put up their own symbols on public property.......SCOTUS decisions do not.Given the propensity of churches to put up statues and monuments......our public properties would be overloaded with everything from Crosses to pyramids to Hollow Earth globes.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dear MR, Constitutionalist

    MR, Constitutionalist said,
    "You are confusing the issue of the religious beliefs of our country's founders and their intention of separation of church and state."

    To your point, I don't think I am confusing the issue of the beliefs for our county's founders. I never meant to make it sound like I was saying the constitution was saying the Country MUST be a christian nation by law. I merely meant to point out how our forefathers felt.
    There is So much of this nonsense that they did not Believe in Christianity when a lot of them did, there is so much evidence they did.

    Now the point you bring up that I wholeheartedly agree with you is Yes they did intend for there to be no official Religion of the united states.

    Even though the well touted statement of separation of church and state as being in the constitution is not in there. I know you know that but I'm sure others who have been quoting that for years may just like to know that.
    Even though that statement is not in there I do of course agree with the Government staying out of Church affairs and Church staying out of Government affairs.
    in that way yes there should very much be separation of Church and State.



    MR, Constitutionalist said,
    " At the same time, these authors of the Bill of Rights were careful to avoid the appearance of favoritism by not permitting the government to celebrate and memorialize one religion over another. While you favor all religions being able to put up their own symbols on public property.......SCOTUS decisions do not.Given the propensity of churches to put up statues and monuments......our public properties would be overloaded with everything from Crosses to pyramids to Hollow Earth globes."


    As to your point, this very well could be where the wheels come off my argument.
    Although perhaps it could be possible to permit all but to regulate by time, place, and manor.
    Not sure but you do give me more to think about.
    You have really given me something to think about and on the outset I think you are
    Right. If you have a few of the scotus decisions I would like to have a look.
    not to say they are not there but it would help me in rethinking my position.
    I love your line about ....."our public properties would be overloaded with everything from Crosses to pyramids to Hollow Earth globes"

    MR, Constitutionalist I like your style. Thanks.


    and for all those who were just slinging mud and making personal attacks take note how MR, Constitutionalist took up the issue with facts and stayed on topic.
    Because of him I learned something today.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous03 June, 2010

    The poor soul doesn't know how to research for SCOTUS decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Is that the best you could do ? What’s the matter, can’t stay on topic ? You can’t find any facts to dispute ? Cant’ stay focused ?
    That’s all you got ? Not a lot of substance there but then again perhaps I make the mistake of thinking I’m talking to someone who can reason.
    Get well soon ,
    Your friend Roll

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous04 June, 2010

    o, Lord deliver us from religious bigots.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous06 June, 2010

    Guy doesn't even recognize himself....typical.

    ReplyDelete
  19. There you go again judging someone you don't even know . But Then again what could I expect from someone who has trouble with rotational thought.
    You do have an amazing ability to draw attention to how petty and ignorant your comments are.
    I wonder if you ever get tired of showing how petty you are ?
    maybe that's all ya got going for you. How sad.
    I don't plan to comment on your petty statements anymore, I'll just let you keep on making the cheap shots with no basis. Seems you need that in your life. Maybe you could somehow put a drawing on here with you sticking your tongue out. Now that's your speed !
    Get well soon.

    ReplyDelete