Showing posts with label mojave. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mojave. Show all posts

Monday, May 17, 2010

Justice Kennedy Disgraced by Simple Soldier: Mojave Desert Cross Story Continues

It's a disgrace. A simple veteran, living somewhere out in California's desert, has put Supreme Court Justice Kennedy's legal reasoning to shame. Kennedy and the other justices who sided with him can use all the convoluted legal contortions they like to justify keeping a Christian cross on public land, but a veteran's simple, honest and heartfelt words have made mincemeat of Kennedy's legal reasoning.

The Desert News received a letter from a guy I'll call "Joe Veteran." Read for yourself.
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.
Could anything be more clearly reasoned?

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Who Stole the Mojave Cross, Atheists or Right-Wing Nuts?

After all of the debate, intense legal work, and a defeat at the hands of religious conservatives who don't believe in the American Constitution, the controversial Mojave Cross was stolen!

Last week we had to listen to the idiotic Rush Limbaugh theorize that the BP oil spill was a left-wing conspiracy to destroy the environment so that they could get their left-wing environmental agenda through Congress. Now the shoe is on the other foot. At a meeting of secularists last night (more about that in a separate blog), several people told me they thought "right wingnuts" stole the cross to make atheists look bad!

Is everything fair in love and war? Is this a war? I hope not. I'd like to think we are a nation of laws, and that while we might disagree strongly about what the law should be and how it should be interpreted, at the end of the day we all obey the law of the land.

I vehemently disagree with the Supreme Court's "logic," which Justice Anthony M. Kennedy defended by saying the 1st Amendment calls for a "policy of accommodation" toward religious displays on public land rather than requiring a strict separation of church and state. If you ask me, that's pure political BS.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Do you see anything in there about "accomodation"? Do you see any exceptions to the words "no law."?