Letters: The Mojave cross' constitutionality

In April 2003, a tarp covered the cross atop Sunrise Peak in the Mojave National Preserve. (Christine H. Wetzel / Associated Press / April 21, 2003)

October 24, 2012

Re "A cross brings a lot to bear," Column One, Oct. 22

Government support for religious displays should be limited to a sole somber occasion — when a symbol of religious belief is inscribed on a deceased veteran's tombstone.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs authorizes 55 different "emblems of belief," including the Christian cross, the angel Moroni for Mormons and the Jewish Star of David.

VA-issued tombstones are of uniform size, and none has its symbol displayed more prominently than any other. Thus, no issue arises regarding government endorsement of religion.

It's fitting that our military heroes have their personal beliefs (or lack thereof) respected in death. But government funds and property shouldn't be used for religious displays that won't uniformly gratify the living.

Gary Dolgin

Santa Monica

A federal judge ruled that a cross' presence on federal land conveyed an endorsement of religion. Left unsaid is just how such a feeling by some is equivalent to a "law respecting an establishment of religion," as the 1st Amendment states, and how the plaintiffs are ever harmed by such symbols without enforced rules on how one has to act religiously.

Mel Wolf

Burbank

Medieval Cathars in southern France held that the cross was a symbol of evil, signifying the cruel method by which Jesus died. They compared it to a person who would wear a noose as a proud remembrance of their innocent father's death.

The Cathars were wiped out by the pope's crusades, but their belief of the cross as a symbol of evil stuck with me after visiting Carcassonne and other sites in France.

A Buddhist stupa with fluttering prayer flags at the Mojave National Preserve, which someone suggested erecting in 1999, would be uplifting and colorful, but there is no reason for one to be put in this spot. The power of the rocks amid this untamed desert should stand alone to celebrate the grandeur of its creator.

Karen Finell

Santa Barbara

ALSO:

Letters: Guns and people

Letters: Caltrans' movie stunt

Letters: No-rules campaign finance

Comments (9)

Add / View comments | Discussion FAQ

Mark L Holland at 7:52 PM October 25, 2012

("MayIseeyourID at 6:08 AM October 25, 2012")("I can't say I care what Mark Holland or anyone else thinks. I am not interested in faulty Supreme Court rulings. Putting all else aside but the Constitution, there is no violation of the first amendment by the presence of this cross or any other cross on federal land.")

Because you operate on Faith, your belief is based upon Faith, but Faith is not evidence of fact. Faith is nothing more then an opinion, You have faith that your false god and beliefs are valid. Great but you also want all other Faiths and beliefs in a God to be invalidated when they are not your beliefs or your god.

And that will not do, I do not care if someone believes that the Great Spaghetti God of Mars is real, but when the followers of the Great Spaghetti God of Mars tells me that I must never again eat Spaghetti and meat balls because their god forbids it then we have a problem.

And if you do not care about what ever information I put out there, then please take the time to invalidate what I say.

http://challengingchristianauthority.blogspot.com/

I would be and am willing to answer any and all questions you would like to put forth. And please note my newist post on the Lineages of Jesus.

Mark L Holland at 7:15 PM October 24, 2012

("MayIseeyourID at 4:39 PM October 24, 2012")("A cross placed in honor of fallen military by fellow military does not violate the first amendment.")

("Putting any religious symbol on tomb stones does not negate the First Amendment because all beliefs are Representated on the tomb stones even Athiesism is represented. The argument has never been about religious or non religious beliefs. The problem has all ways been of presenting one religious belief as being valid over other beliefs.

If a soldier dies who believes in the Great Spaghetti of Mars and his meat ball son, then the emblym of his belief should be on his stone. The desert Cross is an endorsement of Christianity over all other beliefs on Government property. Plain and simple it would never have been an issue except another religious belief wanted to display their religious Icon on other trails in that area and where denied that.

It was a valid case and valid law suit.

Just to let everyone know I am taking a week off from posting, and have updated my blog with a page entitled "The Lineages of Jesus to David" When I actually start taking myself seriously it is time for a break. Like I did a couple of nights ago. Take Care all of you and may your Gods or plain dumb luck be that which helps you through through the day.

PoliticallyUnalignedTruthSayer at 11:14 AM October 24, 2012

Those who feel the Christian cross should be freely displayed on public property should be asked whether they are willing to allow equally prominent displays of other symbols of belief.

How about the Muslim crescent & star? How about the Wiccan pentacle? How about the Atheist incomplete atom?

All these symbols can be found on government-issued tombstones of deceased veterans -- not that during these particular veterans' military careers were their individual beliefs as universally respected and accommodated as those of their "Christian" colleagues.

Where the government is Constitutionally prohibited from endorsing religion, displays of religious symbols on public property should not be permitted UNLESS every belief (whether atheistic or theistic) can be accommodated equally.

Only in the rarest of circumstances -- e.g. uniformly sized inscriptions on veterans' tombstones -- would it appear practical to insure equivalence in all such displays.

Hence bible-thumpers hell-bent (as it were) on contriving prominent displays of their chosen religion's symbol should forget public property, and instead concentrate on purchasing PRIVATE PROPETY on which to place such displays.

Advanced Search

Letters: The Mojave cross' constitutionality

Comments (9)