Street Prophets

God Bless America III

by pastordan

Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:27:04 AM PDT

No, we're not talking about this monstrosity. We're talking about this monstrosity:

LOS ANGELES, July 3 -- A long-running legal battle over a 29-foot-tall cross atop one of the highest hills in San Diego took a new twist on Monday when the United States Supreme Court issued a stay temporarily blocking a lower court order forcing the city to remove it.

I'm not actually of the opinion that each and every cross, Christmas tree and Ten Commandments monument in the nation needs to be removed, posthaste. There was a recent case here in Pennsylvania where a Ten Commandments plaque sat on public property. Groups offered to buy a slice of land from the local government to make the plaque "private property," and I don't know what ever came of that. I thought another suggestion was actually better: move the plaque something like thirty feet so it would be on the property of a local church. That seemed like a sensible compromise.

As for "The Statue of Liberation Through Christ," well, that's just tacky.

The cross in San Diego, like most such monuments, reflects the mores of another time:

The first cross was built on the spot in 1913 and figured prominently in Easter sunrise services. The latest was built in 1954 to replace one that had fallen in a windstorm. It was dedicated on Easter Sunday that year as a Korean War veterans' memorial.

In 1913 and 1954, no one saw anything wrong with this kind of thing. It's easy to say that we know better now, but future generations will of course say the same of our times and idiocy. The trouble is that we've come so far so fast that we've out-stripped the lifespans of our cultural artifacts, or their social signification, anyway.

So I can see both sides of this one. I'm sure it's offensive to atheists and non-Christians to have a cross planted some prominently on city land. But how do you take away the offense without dishonoring - even unintentionally - the lives to which it has been dedicated? Korean War monuments are few and far between as it is, and San Diego is a military-rich community. So does it do more violence to call for the complete removal of the cross than it does to seek some kind of compromise that allows it to stay?

And what role does history play here?

God bless us in our confusion: I suspect that as we continue to become more diverse as a society, we'll only see more of these issues popping up in the courts. I'm actually looking forward to the first case brought against a 23-foot-tall Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now there would be a monstrosity worth fighting over.

  • ::


Tags: (all tags)

Permalink | 28 comments

  • Don't mean to sound cold, but... (0 / 0)

    ...some people are just too damn easily offended.

    by tomkeez on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:39:43 AM PDT

    • It's not that people are offended. (0 / 0)

      It's that people feel threatened. Huge difference.

      For a good example of this, see GBA #1

      The future doesn't scare me at all..'cos nothing's like before.

      by Karmakin on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:11:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • GBA #1? (0 / 0)

        As a San Diego area resident--on and off for decades, I'll just chip in.

        This isn't a local cultural landmark.  It's a local cause celebre.  The case has been before the courts now for many, many years... and those insisting it remain have lost, over and over and over.  They've sunk to framing this as an attack on Christianity.

        Now, look again.  

        It's a corss that was erected on public land for a religious purpose AND dedicated to the memory of the dead of the Korean War.  But not all of those dead were Christians.  So there's a problem... particularly at a time when we are confronted with people of deep faith being denied the symbol assocaited with their faith on their gravesites in national cemeteries.  Thanks, guys.  You can't have your own faith recognized and acknowledged, but hey, there's a big honking cross there for all of you.

        Remember, this is not just in a memorial, it's on a site that has a commanding presence--so what people are seeing all the time isn't a reminder of the war and the dead, it's the cross.  And believe me, people don't see the cross and think, gee... yeah... Korean War memorial.

        It's also a matter of the shenanigans that have been carried out to "save the cross"--along the way, they've tried to sell just the land under the cross--and a few feet around it--to a private association.  This was to get around the violation of church and state issue.  But it was such a defective effort... one reason being that the land was sold quietly and to the only permitted bidder.  No chance for those who wanted to remove it to purchase the land.  Another evidence of government acting in preference to a religious group in the matter.

        There's no reason that the site should not have a monument to the memory of the war dead.  I'd support that.  I'd donate.  But for that to be the symbol of one faith, raised up for a religious purpose, and hanging over the community?  Nah.

        It's an ostentatious religious display (and of one faith), on public land.  That can be corrected, and it can be done without denigrating the memory of the dead.

        The light is at home in the darkness. -- Parmenides

        by ogre on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:39:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • Yeah.. (0 / 0)

          PD's "God Bless America #1" post yesterday, regarding the community that has basically decided to ostracize and harass those that are different from them, and because of that the situation continues to escalate.

          Escalation. That's really what you're talking about here ogre, and what seculars really are looking to avoid. A situation where there is really no dialog, no room for compromise, just both sides forced into entrenching their position more and more.

          Now mind you, I don't blame both sides equally for this. I think that policy of "equal blame" only gives those that are counting on such an escalation more room for attack. And I happen to think in most cases, those erecting the symbols tend to be more to blame. Not that it never goes the other way...just that in cases I've observed there, over time does seem to be a really hostile intent that does come out.

          The future doesn't scare me at all..'cos nothing's like before.

          by Karmakin on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 09:08:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        • Thank you. (0 / 0)

          I suspected as much, but I am not a SD resident, and didn't think to look up local articles.

          by pastordan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:04:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • De nada. (0 / 0)

            After losing the case, and the appeal, and tryng an end run and losing the case, and the appeal, and trying...

            How about some simple respect for the rule of law?

            For godssake, let's move on.  Let the cross-idolators (not all, but in this case, those most engaged seem to be) have that cross to put up somewhere that's not controversial, that's legal.  And let's get a memorial in place....

            The light is at home in the darkness. -- Parmenides

            by ogre on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:35:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  • Why not leave the cross, (0 / 0)

    and install symbols of other religions along with it? There are veterans of the Korean War who are other than Christian, I am sure. If their faith traditions are represented as well, it is no longer a single religion being promoted by a government.

    I am That, you are That, all of this is That, and That is all there is.

    by shakti on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:40:57 AM PDT

    • See above (0 / 0)

      What about the war dead Atheists and Humanists and... even hanging symbols of all faiths on the site--in the same scale--doesn't really serve.

      And if it's a major faiths of the world display, it ends up looking like the traditional presentation of the old (pre-merger) Universalist Church.

      At the national cemeteries, the faiths of individuals are recognized (mostly) and acknowledged--as the faiths of those individuals.  This communalizes Christianity.  And that is a step towards the creation of a national religion--which is something that has been studiously avoided for two centuries.

      The light is at home in the darkness. -- Parmenides

      by ogre on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:43:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • Well, not (0 / 0)

        "studiously avoided for two centuries."

        The First Amendment was only read as applying to the states after the passage of the 14th amendment, and the line of cases establishing a "wall" between church and state date to the opinions of Justice Douglas in the '60's, opinions which were, and remain, highly controversial precisely because they are so recent.

        This is a state establishment of religion issue, not a national one.  Were it not for the 14th Amendment and Justice Douglas, this wouldn't be a legal issue at all.  Not that is shouldn't be; but while the reasoning may go back to Jefferson, the legal argument does not.

        by Rmj on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 09:11:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • How long... (0 / 0)

          ...does precedent have to continuously be upheld before it is no longer described as "recent" and "controversial?"

          The Establishment Clause was incorporated to the States under the 14th Amendment in Cantwell v. Connecticut, a 1940 case authored by Justice Owen Roberts.  Here we sit, 66 years later...at what point is this 1940 case not going to be described as a "recent" development?

          Of the Court's current members, only Justice Thomas would unincorporate the Establishment Clause and would allow the States to adopt their own official religions.

          by Old 33 on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:51:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • You answer your own question. (0 / 0)

            The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.  It took 72 years to get the 1st Amendment applied to the states through it.  It was the '60's or so (I haven't done the hard research) before Douglas got us all talking about the "wall of separation."

            How long until something isn't "recent"?  Well, I grew up in East Texas, where people were still talking, in the 1970's, about the South "rising again."  I know Protestants who are still carrying on a grudge against the Roman Catholic church 500 years after Luther had to hide out to avoid a death sentence.

            As Faulkner said:  the past isn't over.  It isn't even past.

            by Rmj on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:33:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  • Solution (0 / 0)

    pastordan "But how do you take away the offense without dishonoring - even unintentionally - the lives to which it has been dedicated?"

    Simple.

    Give the cross to the Christian Victimhood groups with the following restrictions : it has to be re-erected on private or church land, as a Korean War memorial open to the public, with NO mention of the controversy surrounding the move, other that a flat statement of fact, that it once stood on spot X, and was moved to spot Y by group Z on a given date.

    Then, rededicate the land where it originally stood as a city-sanctioned Korean War memorial, and invite ALL religious groups to contribute symbols of their faith, symbols with carefully stated restrictions as to size, construction materials, placement, etc.

    The City of San Diego actually has an amazing opportunity to create not only a memorial to the dead of a given war, but a tribute to what they died for - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment.

    by The Werewolf Prophet on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:03:40 AM PDT

    • The war memorial (0 / 0)

      ought to be representative of the country, not a faith.

      A flag.  Statue of soldiers of the era.  A monumental plaque expressing what it was they fought for--on one side the preamble to the Constitution, and on the other, that of the UN Declaration that the US responded to, going to "war" in this police action.

      Perhaps some plaques that memorialize key events of that conflict.  And one that recognizes that what they gave their lives for is still in question, that the DMZ and Panmunjom remain reminders....

      The light is at home in the darkness. -- Parmenides

      by ogre on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:31:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • Oh, and regarding (0 / 0)

    the statue "Liberation through Christ"... (sigh).  It's a sad sign when a religion has to call on a (pagan)(Roman) goddess to try to trumpet their message and call in the "faithful."

    Sinclair Lewis leaps to mind.  It can happen here.  It will come holding the bible and wrapped in the flag.

    The symbolic irony is profound and bitter.  The torch was (and is) a symbol for enlightenment--and was more than 2000 years ago.  Illumination.

    They've taken it away, and given her a cross to bear (Jesus wept).

    They've turned a symbol of freedom and illumination, enlightenment, into a symbol of Dominionism.  I come bearing not light, but the cross.  I offer you not the hope of 1776, but the Commandments.  Church attempting to borg the symbol most profoundly antithetical to Dominionism.

    They draped her in a burqa, and when they dropped it, they revealed they'd tattooed the "name" of their God on her forehead (ok, yeah, crown).

    Ah, freedom.  R. Crumb couldn't have depicted your violation any more obscenely, or graphically.  No wonder you weep.

    The light is at home in the darkness. -- Parmenides

    by ogre on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:28:05 AM PDT

    • One of the most interesting things to me (0 / 0)

      is that it's a black church doing this. As Pam at Pandagon/Pam's House Blend has pointed out, conservative black congregations have this thing about out-conservativing their white counterparts...

      by pastordan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:36:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • Sometimes its that (0 / 0)

        Sometimes its that separation of church and state isn't such an issue for them.

        In other words, they could be acting in good faith.  After all, had the separation of church and state argument prevailed in the 19th century, Congregational churches might never have fostered the abolitionist movement.

        by Rmj on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:35:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • It's just as likely ... (0 / 0)

          ... that such antics are being encouraged by corrupt leadership in the African-American Christian community, leadership that has sold its soul to the GOP for a slice of the Power Pie, and its attendant privileges.

          by The Werewolf Prophet on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:07:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • Change the facts (0 / 0)

            change the outcome.

            "Antics" can depend on which side you are looking from.

            I don't mean any black church involved in this would be automatically innocent of motives I might disapprove of. But neither do I assume that someone who holds a position different from mine is "corrupt" or not acting in good faith on what they believe, or consider either valid or valuable.

            It might be I just have to agree to disagree with them.  It might be I misunderstand their reasons.  It might be they are simply seeking power, and little else.

            I don't have enough facts to sit in judgment.  And since I don't want to be judged, I'm trying to withdraw from making judgments at all.  But it ain't  easy.

            by Rmj on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:51:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • You can.. (0 / 0)

              Make judgement on the outward facts without implying any sort of internal movtives.

              Although from my experience, there is usually some money flowing around:p

              The future doesn't scare me at all..'cos nothing's like before.

              by Karmakin on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:15:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            • Well, you can say this much (0 / 0)

              without really being judgmental: the fact is that on more than one occasion, black congregations that have flirted with the line separating church and state (or religion and politics, as in this case) have been both a)rabidly homophobic and b)recipients of Bush administration faith-based initiatives funds.

              It's really getting to be too much to be a coincidence.

              by pastordan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:33:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              • Money talks. (0 / 0)

                And:  why would you expect them to not be rabidly homophobic?

                The so-called "liberal" denomintions haven't wholly settled that issue in their own ranks yet.

                by Rmj on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:34:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                • Why ? (0 / 0)

                  Because Gay is the new Nigger.

                  The hate-filled, power-hungry radical religious reich folk who fight tooth and nail against GLBT marriage are the same in spirit as those who lynched black civil rights activists in Martin Luther King's day.

                  One *might* think that the African-American community would not have forgotten quite so quickly ...

                  by The Werewolf Prophet on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:06:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  • Not sure (0 / 0)

                    I'm quite ready to equate opposition to "gay marriage" with lynch mobs.

                    That's quite a different level of threat, there.

                    by Rmj on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 06:00:33 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    • "Level of threat" (0 / 0)

                      I expressed myself poorly due to the late / early hour.

                      Rabid homophobia is nearly equal, and gay-bashing is identical, even if not on the same scale. My point is that fear-filled (and hateful) people use biblical and pseudo-scientific justification to promote lies about the "threat to society" posed by GLBT folk in the EXACT SAME WAY their counterparts did against African-Americans in the 1960s.

                      One would think that African-Americans of today would figure out that us GLBT folk are up against the SAME enemy, the only difference being that we are the target instead of them. And a lot of times, they are STILL the target as well.

                      by The Werewolf Prophet on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:06:23 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

  • Justice Breyer (0 / 0)

    Given the two Bush appointees to the Court, it is likely that the cross in San Diego will be found to be constitutional, and not an establishment of religion.

    And it may even be a 6-3 decision, with Justice Breyer siding with the majority (and, if Roberts is smart, perhaps even writing the opinion).

    In Van Orden v. Perry, the TX Ten Commandments case from the 2004-05 term, Justice Breyer cast the deciding vote to uphold the display at the Texas Statehouse.  A big part of this reasoning was the longevity of the display, and his desire to not set in motion a ruling that would have cities ripping up decades-old monuments.

    But, as I have said, in reaching the conclusion that the Texas display falls on the permissible side of the constitutional line, I rely less upon a literal application of any particular test than upon consideration of the basic purposes of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses themselves.  This display has stood apparently uncontested for nearly two generations.  That experience helps us understand that as a practical matter of degree this display is unlikely to prove divisive.  And this matter of degree is, I believe, critical to a borderline case such as this one.

    At the same time, to reach a contrary conclusion here, based primarily upon the religious nature of the tablets' text would, I fear, lead the law to exhibit a hostility toward religion that has no place in our Establishment Clause traditions.  Such a holding might well encourage disputes concerning the removal of longstanding depictions of the Ten Commandments from public buildings across the Nation.  And it could thereby create the very kind of religiously based divisiveness that the Establishment Clause seeks to avoid.

    by Old 33 on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:06:25 AM PDT

Permalink | 28 comments