Take down the cross
In 1954 the city of San Diego erected a 20 ton cross on top of Mount Soledad, which is city property. The cross was a memorial to soldiers who were killed in the Korean war. Obviously the city fathers of the day thought that only Christians died in Korea, which, if that were the case, indicates that the Christian deity did a poor job of protecting his own.
The cross is 29 feet tall and is maintained by the city with taxpayer funds on land which is owned by the taxpayers as well. For 17 years the city has attempted to keep up this subsidy to the Christian religion. They were told long ago that the cross needed to be removed and they have tried underhanded and sneaky legal tactics to avoid obeying the Constitution. In one case they tried to sell the spot of land directly under the cross to a non-profit group that would keep the cross up. All the surrounding land would still be owned by the city.
Now a judge has told he city that they have 90 days to remove the city or face a $5,000 day fine. The Republican run city, like the Republican run nation, is facing a financial crisis and can not really afford this fine. The city attorney has said that going back to court is futile but Mayor Jerry Saunders is oblvious to reality and says that they will continue to try new legal measures in order to keep up the subsidy.
posted by GodlessZone at Saturday, May 06, 2006
7 Comments:
I don't see what the fuss is all about; what harm has been done? Sure not all who fought Korea were Christian, and God doesn't protect His people from each other, but the cross is the world symbol of grief, sacrifice, and graves. Certainly Jesus-land as you call it shouldn't be upset by this memorial.
May 06, 2006
In a nutshell the harm that is done is to the Constitution which forbids the blending of church and state. Tax payer funds can not be used to promote any one religion. Contrary to your argument the cross is not a world symbol of grief, sacrifice and graves --- it is a Christian symbol of those things. I assure you that you won't crosses on graves in much of the world only in Christian regions. The state should not inhibit religion nor should it support it. The reason is that the state has no resources but those which it takes by force from others. And it is immoral to force a man to promote ideas with which he disagrees.
May 06, 2006
Look, what else should be erected for the dead? Will there not be a cross on your grave or pot? It IS a world symbol for graves etc. but if you think it is the mixture of state and church, sure. Just don't forget that your Nation was founded by Chrisitans, and therefor it is part of your history, as much as it is part of mine.
I do think it is at its place on your site. I'd suggest to first have a talk with the inhabitants before placing just some sign. Perhaps this whole cross wouldn't have been there, perhaps they'd prever a very neutral statue suggesting completely nothing; art, I think it's called. We have weirdos like that walking around here, creating scrap from scrap, and makinf the most awfull things from metal and rock. Strange enough they get paid for it, but I'm getting off subject.
Religion is what you tie to it, noticed? Christians use the symbol of the cross, yes, but it's just a cross, used to put people on who have been very naughty or have been playing messias. Generally I think you're making a lot of noise over very little, but that's just me. It's good noise though...
May 06, 2006
There are monuments to the dead all over the world without crosses. And it is areligious symbol that is funded by tax payer funds. Second, the US was founded between 1776 (Declaration of Independence) and 1789 (the Constitution) and the primary players in that conflict were most definetly NOT Christians.
As for making noise I am merely reporting the court case and stating that the Constution does not permit using government to promote a religion.
May 06, 2006
Okay, okay;
There are other monuments to the dead, but I was suggesting not the foundation of the US, but the first Europeans to set foot on American soil, excluded the vikings. The settlers so to speak.
Sorry 'bout that noise thing, but I didn't mean any harm by that, as I said, it is not disturbing, and you are right that a state should not promote religion unless that state is certainly a 100% true to that religion, which is certainly not the case anywhere, anymore.
May 06, 2006
The colonies actually have a mixed bag regarding settlers. Some colonies had no religious inspiration at all. Others, while religious, like Rhode Island, enshrined freedom of religion while the Pilgrins were petty tyrants who hated religious freedom. But these people found colonies not the United States. The Founding Fathers who are called that because they were the founders of the nation were not Christians for the most part but deists. To say the US had a Christian founding is not entirely accurate.
May 06, 2006
Thanks for your history update, I bow.
May 06, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home