The San Diego Union-Tribune reported last year:
The emotional hearing Tuesday took place in Golden Hall, where the meeting was moved ahead of time to accommodate a crowd that was expected to be too big for the council’s usual chambers in the City Administration Building. More than 60 speakers, most of them Christians, urged the council to give the cross to the federal government. About 15 others, mainly veterans, said the cross should move.
James Hartline, a Christian activist from Hillcrest, added that a vote against giving the cross to the National Park Service would not be forgotten. “We will either prevail before this City Council to maintain the cross in its current location or we will prevail in the 2006 and 2008 elections,” Hartline said. “It is not the jurisdiction of this City Council to negotiate away our religious freedoms. The Mount Soledad cross is non-negotiable.”
The idea that anyone’s personal religious freedom is threatened by not having the government own its own giant cross is simply laughable. Hartline doesn’t seem to understand the difference between personal religious expression and government-endorsed religious expression. If he thinks that the cross is so important, he and his entire congregation can put crosses on their own land — that is personal religious expression which is a protected religious freedom.
According to News 10, the appeal has little chance of success but it’s being pursued anyway:
On May 3, U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. ordered the city to remove the cross within 90 days or face a $5,000-per-day fine. ... Judges have twice ruled that the sale of the land surrounding the memorial to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, which maintains the site along with hundreds of memorial plaques, was unconstitutional. ...
“We don’t vote on our constitutional rights,” James McElroy, the attorney for the atheist who initiated the case in 1989, told the City Council. “It is the preeminent symbol of Christianity,” McElroy said. “For that reason it is never going to be permissable on public property.”
Inside court rooms, and when speaking to the press, defenders of the cross insist that it isn’t “really” a religious symbol. When speaking to people in order to get them to provide financial or emotional support, however, they reverse their message and emphasize the fact that the cross is a religious symbol which promotes Christianity. A good example is Chris Clark, pastor of East Clairemont Southern Baptist Church speaking with Baptist Press:
“We need to remind everybody that when we look at a cross or a symbol of our faith such as what we see on Mt. Soledad, that symbol contains a message,” Clark added. “The message is that of the cross, which Paul said is foolishness to those who are perishing but to those being saved it is the power of God. It’s imperative for us as Christians to continue to proclaim that message, but if we roll over and allow these symbols to be taken down out of fear of offending someone, then how strongly do we believe that message? How strongly are we convinced that that message is the power of God?”
Let’s review what Chris Clark expressly admits:
- The cross is a symbol of the Christian faith.
- The cross conveys a religious message.
- The cross sends a message to Christians about the victorious power of their god.
- Christians have a duty to proclaim this message.
These things aren’t merely implied, they are stated outright. They are all also true — there is no disputing them. Given the fact that this isn’t about a cross on private property or at a church, but a cross on government land, the following can be inferred as the position of Chris Clark and all others who want the cross to remain:
- The government has the authority to promote & endorse a symbol of Christianity.
- The government has the authority to promote & endorse a Christian message.
- The government has the authority to promote & endorse a special message to Christians that their god’s power is victorious.
- The government has the authority to help Christians fulfill their duty to proclaim this message to non-Christians.
In contrast to the first group of statements, all of this is wrong — not in the sense that these aren’t statements being implied, but in the sense that the government doesn’t have any of the authority being asserted here. What Chris Clark and others are essentially demanding is that the government take their side in religious disagreements and abuse it’s civil power to declare Christianity is true — and, by implication, that everyone else is wrong.
This is what Christians like Chris Clark sincerely believe and they have every right to express this sentiment all they want. What they do not have, however, is any right to insist that the government be used to help them express this message or that the government take their side by endorsing or promoting this message. The sincerity of their belief does not entitle them to special privileges in our society — they have to be responsible for spreading their message on their own. If they can’t, then they shouldn’t turn to the government for help.
Separation of Church & State:
- Separation of Church and State 101
- Secularism 101
- What is the Separation of Church and State?
- Religion's Place in the Public Square
- Myths About Church/State Separation
- Church and State News
- Church & State Polls
Christian & Religious Privilege:
No official government document by the founding fathers refers to separation of church and state
thats it, pure and simple, it is a myth.
the needs of the few outweigh the rights of the all?
some gave all they deserve the right to have Mt. Soledad as a reminder of what they did and the sacrifices they made.
1. That’s not true.
2. Even if it were true, the absence of the phrase “separation of church and state” does not imply the absence of the concept. The Bible never actually uses the word “Trinity,” but hardly any Christian would argue that therefore the concept is also absent. The Constitution doesn’t use the phrase “right to a fair trial,” but who would conclude that, therefore, the concept is not present and, furthermore, that no such right exists?
Non sequitur. You seem to be objecting to how the desires of a majority of voters can be overridden, but the fact of the matter is the Constitution is a consistently anti-majoritarian document. There are many ways in which the wishes of the majority can and should be overridden.
There is absolutely nothing about the sacrifices of any soldier or sailor which requires government favoritism towards one religion as part of a recognition of those sacrifices. Indeed, by using a Christian symbol, the government is effectively denigrating the sacrifices of non-Christians who have served in the armed forces.
Or is that precisely what you favor?
1. Actually, it is true, in the sense that the phrase “separation of church and state” originated in a letter by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 (see http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html), and has been “solidified” through various progressive court decisions. Perhaps that does make this “official” then, but it was not in any of the “original” documents, like the Constitution.
2. As you say, many things are implied that we take for granted now. The trouble with this issue is that this nation was (largely) founded as a way to escape the pressures of the Church of England, for Protestants to separate from Catholicism and worship the Christian God in their own way. This is why the Fathers were so determined to keep national gvt. out of the arena of religion. Notice Jefferson later says in his letter: “I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man”.
We Christians are indeed a determined lot. We take pride in our country’s roots, and are still thankful for the freedoms the Founding Fathers were wise enough to instill from the beginning. The times are changing, however. Society in our nation seems to be intensely cautious of offense now. It used to be that a cross was still a general symbol of mutual respect for a higher power, for higher standards; whether one really believed in the Christian God or not, at least one could tolerate the symbol with respect. I know, it could go the other way around. Why can’t we just respect an empty plot; why a cross that makes such a strong statement for something? At the same time, why not?
I wonder, why can’t the cross on Mt. Soledad just be received with graciousness? Why take offense at it? Even for those veterens who do not believe in it, why can’t they be honored that the Christians wish them well by it? Let it stand for the love and honor it has always stood for, without taking offense by it.
True, perhaps by giving this to federal gvt., we are breaking this wall of separation. Perhaps we ought not to do it. But perhaps we could grow up as a society and not be so tender that we take offense at symbols that are meant to reflect powerful concepts, which we seem to be lacking in more and more, tending toward an aggravating mediocrity.
The letter wasn’t personal, it was a statement of official government policy. Jefferson worded it carefully and revised it at least once in order to ensure that he conveyed that government policy accurately. It’s official, though it wasn’t a law.
No, the cross was only ever a Christian symbol that non-Christians were forced to put up with because they lacked political and legal power to challenge it. Christians either didn’t care that it demonstrated favoritism towards one religion over all others or they failed to appreciate this fact because they lacked the ability to put themselves in the shoes of others. Far too many suffer from this lack of “moral imagination” — this inability to realize that not everyone shares their assumptions about the world.
It’s favoritism towards one religion over all others. If Christians like the cross so much, why can’t they move it to private property — like a church lot.
Notice how much Christians complained about the United 93 memorial when it appeared to look like a Muslim crescent.
If Christians really wished non-Chritians well, they wouldn’t presume to try to “honor” them with a Christian symbol. Using a symbol which is exclusively Christian, and which expresses religious doctrines which other religions (like Judaism and Islam) explicitly reject (the resurrection), Christians are in fact disrespecting and denigrating non-Christians.
Perhaps Christians should grow up and stop insisting that their personal religious symbols are somehow “universal” and should be “accepted” by everyone else with “graciousness” when others’ opinions were never even asked in the first place, much less actually taken into consideration.
Is there any difference between this and whites insisting that all other races should “accept with graciousness” being represented by the symbols, cultures, and images of white people?
Being a lifelong San Diegan, I am thuroughly amazed by this issue. For seventeen years, one man has pushed the entire population of a city (1.3+ million) around.
Repeatedly the population of SD comes out in support of the memorial, only to be shot down again. Frankly, my guess is that this will continue until one side is gone, or the supreme court makes a final decision.
As for this enigmatic “seperation of church and state,” there is no such thing at a federal level. There is a distinct difference between establishing a religion (AKA the 1st amendment) and recognizing the existance of one (IE a cross, which has many meanings).
As for Thomas Jefferson: if we are going to start recognizing correspondance writings, as federal law, then we have alot of re-formulating to do. How many letters do you think have been sent out to public organizations from presidents since the time of Jefferson?
That’s a back-handed way of saying that the rights of minorities should be subsumed under the will of the majority.
Yes, there is.
The cross here is a Christian cross and putting it up like this expresses favoritism for Christianity – it’s not merely recognizing that Christianity exists.
Irrelevant, since most presidents weren’t involved with writing the documents upon which the structure our of government were based. Jefferson was, and that’s why his writings – especially his official ones – carry weight here.
I can recognize a good rebuttal…
But then I have to ask, or beg, the question, what do we plan to do with Arlington?
While it is a federal site, granted, it still falls under the jurisdiction of the Constitution (supposing that the constution actually seperates church and state)
The question then becomes, how far, or how much, of America does the constitution cover?
“But then I have to ask, or beg, the question, what do we plan to do with Arlington?”
Assuming you’re talking about the crosses at the individual graves, then we don’t need to do anything because no one is trying to use those crosses to honor all veterans. It’s purely individual, with each person getting a cross if it’s appropriate to them, but something else if it’s not appropriate.
In a situation like that, there is no real government favoritism towards any religion.
The Constitution covers all government actions anywhere in America. The Constitution limits and describes the proper authority of the government. The best way to think of the separation of church and state (IMHO) is to see it as a separation of religious and civil authority. The Constitution is limiting government here by denying it any authority in religious matters.
Mt. Soledad Cross To Move ????
Not a chance in hell……….
How about this. The two or three od-phobic people who are causing so much trouble can have their own hill top. Maybe with a hole in the ground that they can go look at. This is about one thing and one thing only. Minority tyranny.
This is about one thing and one thing only. Minority tyranny.
Nonsense. This is about ensuring that the government doesn’t overstep its authority because the government has no authority to endorse, promote, or favor any religions or religious beliefs.
Our founding fathers sought to protect our right to practice our religous beliefs the way we so choose, not abolish religous symbols just because they offended someone. This is a memorial and the cross is a symbol of many different religous faiths, not just one. We are not being required to go stand under it and worship according to how a government says we have to. The cross is not there to change or influence anyones beliefs.
Our founding fathers sought to protect our right to practice our religous beliefs the way we so choose, not abolish religous symbols just because they offended someone.
You got just about everything wrong here. The only thing you got right was the fact that people’s right to practice their religious beliefs. However:
1. That isn’t affected when the government doesn’t endorse or promote that religion.
2. Insisting that the government not endorse or promote someone’s religions isn’t the same as “abolishing” a religious symbol.
3. Insisting that the government not endorse or promote a religion is based not on “offense,” but on the fact that the government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to do so.
This is a memorial and the cross is a symbol of many different religous faiths, not just one.
That’s not just false, but arrogantly false. The cross is a symbol of Christianity – not of Islam, Wicca, Judaism, or any other faith. That’s why, for example, the military provides headstones other than crosses for so many non-Christian members of the military. Thus, even the armed services acknowledges the fact that the cross is Christian.
Sadly the atheist who wants this old cross taken down is just another one of the whiner class of atheists who make it so hard for atheists who seek to gain respect and influence in society to succeed.
The cross has been there for quite awhile and gave solace to many people at one time during hard times. Yes it’s a religious symbol but it’s not entirely Christian, the cross predates Christianity by thousands of years. You will find the cross even in ancient cave drawings. The cross is the symbol of the sun, source of life and wonder since the beginning of humanity. The cross means a lot to many types of people.
Yes it is a questionable minor infraction of using government land for religious display but I am willing to let it slide as just not really that important.
I am an atheist and as an atheist I am much more concerned about the infringement of human rights in this country by this administration.
The taking away of privacy and personal rights under the guise of terrorism, the implementation of a mandatory universal ID card by 2008 for all U.S. citizens, the requirement of a thumbprint for a drivers license, the requirement of a thumbprint to cash a check, the ability to hold U.S. citizens for any length of time without trial by Homeland Security under the guise of terrorism.
And don’t forget the world situation, the murder and enslavement of multi-thousands of people by various governments. These and so many more important issues are the true work of atheists and not the kicking over of people’s idols on a technicality.
Shame on the atheist who would waste his and the court’s time and money on this cross and ignore all the real good that he could do and that demands his “immediate” attention.
Once the cross is removed then the name Soledad which means Solitude will truly reflect that mountain peak, a barren stripped dirt pile.
Is this the work this atheist feels must be done, stripping life of all meaning, all value till only a void remains? No thanks, as an Atheist I believe there is no God, but I do believe in humanity and it’s ability to fill the void with all manner of wonderful and terrible things. Any atheist who attempts to strip that away is ultimately a nihilist and a loser.
You mean, he has different interests and priorities from you…
Do you have any reason to think that this cross was meant as anything other than a Christian symbol, or are you just looking for a rationalization for condemning the atheist involved in this case?
You forgot to add at the end “to me.” What’s important to you is not, however, the same as what’s important to everyone else.
Then you focus on that issue and others can focus on the issues they care most about.
No, shame on the atheist who would presume to determine what every other atheist should be interested in and should spend their time with.
Horrors.
Yeah, the absence of a Christian cross on a hill will cause life to be stripped of all meaning and value. It will be the end of the world as we know it.
Like, things other than crosses? Then the absence of this cross won’t matter, will it? Ooopss…
And what about an atheist who whines about other atheists have different priorities from theirs?
I continue to be perplexed by the ardor of those who fail to recognize the inherent impropriety of a Christian symbol atop a non-denominational, patriotic memorial site.
Whilewe should all be mindful of what Sinclair Lews said in 1935 (“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.”), I think the Mt. Soledad war memorial would be well suited to the flying of a singular, dramatic American flag.
Someone please, tell me what would be wrong with that?
Once the cross is removed then the name Soledad which means Solitude will truly reflect that mountain peak, a barren stripped dirt pile.
“Horrors.”
Your response is the exact caulous and inhuman view of other people’s beliefs that gives all atheists a bad name. I find such a response from you extremely immature and cold. Whether we as atheists agree with the beliefs of others is not the point, the point is do we as atheist humans care enough about all humans not to hurt each other? The ultimate problem comes down to this human failing, the unrelenting and destructive need to impose our will on another. That attitude is the basis of many of the religions that we are so against. Why are you expressing that same “religious” attitude now?
There is no atheist agenda, there is no crusade, there is no need to burn books which this cross removal has become. Being an atheist means being beyond these distinctions and enjoying the freedom of mind that comes with that view. So loosen up and relax.
“Yeah, the absence of a Christian cross on a hill will cause life to be stripped of all meaning and value. It will be the end of the world as we know it.”
Again, the same cold and easily embraced ability to disregard an aspect of humanity, this is not atheism. Remember, the destruction of any aspect of humanity diminishes us all, why add your boot?
To the man who wants the cross taken down and a flag put up. Again your missing the point, as atheists we are beyond this, we exist in freedom of thought unbound by the conventions of religion, or nationalism. The cross is a non-issue, a waste of our escape into reason. Shall we use our freedom to fall into the mire, to fight in the mud or to do something truly free like change the world for the better?
“The cross is a non-issue, a waste of our escape into reason. Shall we use our freedom to fall into the mire, to fight in the mud or to do something truly free like change the world for the better?”
Just to make sure I understand, Steve, are you saying there is no rational basis for ANYONE to care whether the cross stays or goes? After all, some might feel that moving the cross to a church instead of standing atop a public memorial might indeed “change the world for the better.”
No, it’s sarcasm.
The fact that others are made upset by ending an illegal activity is not a good enough reason to allow it to continue
Yes, that’s the problem with allowing the cross to remain.
Nonsense. The cross can continue to exist on private property. There is no valid analogy to “burning books” by removing it from public land. Don’t be so absurd.
No, it’s called sarcasm.
The cross is a non-issue, a waste of our escape into reason.
If the cross is a non-issue for you, then someone fighting the cross should also be a non-issue for you.
You can’t reasonably care about someone fighting it unless the cross itself really is important after all, at least on some level. By writing so vehemently against a single atheist taking this to court, you reveal that you do consider the cross to be important and the presence of the cross to be an important issue.
Furthermore, if fighting the cross really is a waste, it’s not your waste. You aren’t involved, except insofar as you write long blog comments proclaiming how it isn’t “really” important to you.
Dear Atheism,
Make your best case for how the world will be better once the cross is gone. As an atheist who has escaped into reason this is all I ask of you. After all the effort, money, courts and time, what are the benefits that humanity as a whole will enjoy after the cross is put to rest. Stop fencing, reason with me, atheist to atheist. This is all I ask.
Another false dilemma fallacy. It’s not necessary that the world as a whole be a better place with the cross gone in order to justify the removal of the cross. Setting that as the standard is absurd. We don’t set such standards before doing anything else in our lives and we shouldn’t do so here.
All that’s required is that the presence of the cross be contrary to the law. I have to wonder why you would insist on such a standard, unless you know that you can’t substantively counter any of the arguments which others offer. This would also explain why you refuse to engage any of those arguments, always preferring to come up with some new bit of nonsense in every comment.
“We don’t set such standards before doing anything else in our lives and we shouldn’t do so here.”
We don’t?
As atheist humans who have escaped into reason, the very nature of that escape demands that “our” actions and standards should be higher, better, truer and nobler, otherwise what does our escape from the bondage of what we call religion amount to except an abandonment of humanity in preference of self interest. This seems to be what you are suggesting, a return to the jungle.
“…some new bit of nonsense in every comment.”
What’s wrong with you? Why do you say things like this? Who are you? Why are you so vindictive, so angry?
“…making up new standards for action that neither you nor anyone else would ever imaging insisting upon.”
The standards of love, truth, justice, transcendence of self, the embrace of reason and radical freedom and what it inspires? These are the standards that you suggest I have made up, that I don’t live by and that no one else lives by either? I don’t think you are an atheist, you don’t speak like one, you don’t act like one, your anger and disregard of every aspect of life that truly has value and that truly is worth fighting for and going to court over tells me that you still have vestiges of religion clouding your reason. Were you a Christian who had a falling out? You seem to focus especially on them.
Steve,
The web site for the memorial reads: “From the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial, 822 feet high above San Diego County, a 360-degree, awe-inspiring view stretches:
* South to panoramic views of San Diego, Coronado and beyond to Mexico,
* North to the University of California at San Diego and Torrey Pines cliffs and golf course,
* East to purple-hued mountains, and
* West to the Pacific waters at the shores of La Jolla.”
The memorial is also surrounded by a park with,
“* wide-open grass areas,
* benches on which to rest and enjoy the sights, and
* descending nature walkways to view the native chaparral and abundant wildlife.”
It sounds like a lovely, consoling naturally scenic place. If only it didn’t have that big ugly cross stuck in the middle of it.
http://www.soledadmemorial.com/about.html
No, we don’t. I do lots of things which will not end up making the world a better place. So do you.
False dilemma fallacy. Again. First, being an atheist and relying on reason does no require that every action be “higher, better, truer, nobler.” Second, the fact that every action isn’t so does not entail that we “return to the jungle.”
Nothing is wrong with me; what’s wrong with you?
You pretend that the standard for one’s actions should be that they end up making the world as a whole a better place. No one, including you, actually uses that standard — but you pretend to apply it here. Why? Is it simply because you lack any real arguments?
So, because I can tell you are making up standards which you don’t really apply anywhere else, because I point our your constant logical fallacies, and because I point out the fact that you keep straying from the topic, never making any real arguments, I’m not “really” an atheist. Once again, that’s absurd.
Look, a person who constantly employs logical fallacies should not accuse others of having their logic clouded by reason. It’s not “higher, better, truer, and nobler.” The same can be said for insisting that if something isn’t worthwhile to you, then it can’t be worthwhile to anyone else.
You ask me who I am, but my identity is plain for everyone. Who are you? Why do you post anonymously when you insist that, unlike others, you are motivated by only the highest principles?
Actually I didn’t post anonymously, my name is Steve as you can see in my email signatures.
What did you want, my phone number and address?
But I can see it is pointless to reason with you, as our enemy said, “Cast not thy pearls before the swine.”
Of course I will allow “you” to have the last word, there is no avoiding that.
Given how many Steves there are, that’s no less anonymous that posting as “John Smith”
I have responded to every claim you have made; you have addressed none of my arguments. I have pointed out numerous logical fallacies which you have committed; you have made no corrections or changes in light of that. There are specific legal arguments made for removing the cross; you don’t even try to rebut them.
Hi,
I am a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead, that he is my savior and the savior of humanity and that faith and trust in him is the “only” means of eternal life and that those that reject Christ and his gift of salvation remain in sin and under the judgment of God.
Having clarified my position let me say that I believe it is illegal for the cross to be on Mt. Soledad. That is government land and it was wrong for our government to put a cross up there. They have no right or authority to stick their nose in Christian business. Leave us alone, we will put up our own crosses.
Also I don’t believe that the government should give Christian organizations tax breaks, also I don’t believe that the government should have to license a church. Why should Christians have to apply to the government in order to gather and worship?
Keep the government out of our business. History shows that the moment government gets involved in religion people start getting burned, literally!
I hope the atheist wins his case, it is sad that an unbeliever has to do the work that Christians should have been doing from the start. It just shows that Christians have failed in their commission to be good stewards and need to get their act together by knowing the law.
I live in SD and this cross makes me uncomfortable. I’ve always been uncomfortable around large religious symbols since childhood. Having been raised catholic, I find such things rather creepy. That being said, I find it very sad that all this money has been spent, is being spent by the city of San Diego and County of San Diego to fight for this nonsense when they cut programs for needy people. People are in need of food, homes, etc and to think that the enegry, money that has been put forth for this could be harnessed to end suffering for children and their families in this county amazes me and saddens me deeply. Would supporters of appealing this be willing to spend as much money improving the lives of the poor?? No. Funding for all children to have pre-school? No. Healthcare for all? No. Decent wages to live on? No. College education for all who wish to get it? Absolutly not, college isn’t a right, it’s a privledge. We aren’t worth it in the eyes of the public. Yet, the rallying cry around a inanimate object is loud. You people make me sick. Once again it shows how skewed xtian priorities are.
To say that the “majority of San Diegans support the xross” therefore it should remain on public property and be supported by PUBLIC tax dollars, is like saying that well, the majority of the southern states support the oppression and slavey of us blacks therefore it should have remained a part of American society even though it was wrong.
Anyway, I’m trying to lean towards the “don’t care” side, but it angers me so much that so much money is being wasted. Also angers me that I can’t go up there to enjoy a sunrise or sunset, without being creeped out by this horrible symbol. It should not have ever been put up. Period. Shame on those who allowed this to happen. Shame on people in this country for embracing this sort of wedge between people. If your god exists, and I’m not debating that here, would your god be pleased with your behavior? Ask youself that question. Would your god reward you for taking money that should benefit those people who need it and taking it to fight over an object? It’s bewildering that xtians use their religion as a wedge, yet say they love their brother. How so? For example, can one xtian explain how I manage to morph into someone displeasing or someone who needs to be “saved” after having conversed with me, being friendly with me, shared meals with me and my family etc, but the moment they find out that I don’t believe, in an instant it changes. Who changed? Me? No. I was a decent person prior to and after any religious talk, I’m still the same person as before, yet I can with a blink of an eye become someone to shun and fear. What a load of crap. People like that I don’t want to know. That just further proves to me that xtianity is NOT a religion that is loving at all or to all. I was a decent person before, I remain a decent person. The changes are with the xtians. If we atheists behaved towards xtrians like xtians behave towards us, oh how you all would howl about being discriminated against, about persecution, etc. Oh wait, that’s what you all are doing here isn’t it.
How does this xross symbolize everyone when it divides so many? How can anyone say that with a striaght face? Seems to me what xtians are saying is that, join with us and then it wouldn’t be so divisive. It’s like you all say, Give up your free thoughts become like us and see presto chango no problem. Bull. Why would I wish to involve myself with any group of people who would think like that? Why would I wish to be around a symbol of oppression and fear? Why would anyone? IMHO, seems like xtians are the problem. We atheists are not trying to take YOUR religious crutch from you, I just want enjoy the right to be feel free of YOUR religious crutch and enjoy a relaxing sunset, perhaps reflect upon what those who died, died for, without the imposition of religion into my thoughts. I do not for one second believe that those soldiers who this is supposed to memorialize, would wish to see the country they fought for and died for, bicker over this. No one wants to remove the memorial. Period. Just the xross. Put it on church grounds. That’s were they belong. Atheists have never tried to remove them from chruch grounds or to remove your churches (even if there are too many of them inmo) I’m sure that if I were one of those soldiers, who may not believe or is of different beliefs, I would not want to have such an ugly, hate filled symbol representing me. Yes, I do see xtianity as a hateful religion. Hateful in the sense that xtianity loves to use force, fear and division (at one point violence was used; seems like some of you wish to return to the days of violence) to keep people in line. I don’t want anything to do with that. Supporters will scream at me for this post, but like you, I have the right to have my feelings, opinions, as you I have the right to express them, so do I.
One last question: Do you all really, really believe that a person doesn’t see any xtian religion in the xross that’s up there? How can you honestly believe that and really expect us to buy that? Is the xross not the symbol of xtianity? How can you all now divest it of it’s religious symbolism with a striaght face? Then turn around and use it as a symbol of your religion? I don’t understand this smoke and mirrors trick you’re trying to pull. Think about it. Really think about what you are saying.
Sorry for being so wordy. I’m just soo pissed over this. I’ve been in SD for 16 of the 17 or so years this has being going on and it angers me that so much money is being wasted on this. It’s costing a fortune I’m sure and I can’t see how it could possibly be worth it, while so many in this county go without, while our libraries have to put out a “donation” box, while schools are underfunded, county programs are cut, people have little or no health care, while people struggle so very hard to survive, while workers lose out on the pensions, the city and county spends all this money foolishly. How can they afford it all these years?
Anyway, I needed to vent, didn’t realise it’d be so much.
I’ve posted Monica’s comments here.