Unwelcome religious symbol or historical landmark

[Free South Califas]

I saw his arguments. The first was rather unconvincing since he was unable to provide a reason why the missionary's visit to this locale was historically significant and the second was a lie.

didnt mean any disrespcet i know you dont need to prove anything that is why this is debate not a scientific convention. no need to get hostile towards me or any other people.

What the hell? Dyakovo could scarcely have been less emotional or hostile in that post.

[Dyakovo]

I saw his arguments. The first was rather unconvincing since he was unable to provide a reason why the missionary's visit to this locale was historically significant and the second was a lie.

Well find the historian's paper then, or his arguments. I am not doing your homework for you. I am not your research assistant.

In other words, you've got nothing. You're (one of) the one(s) making the positive claim, Tue burden of proof is on you.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Sorry, I never meant to imply that your nationality is relevant to this particular cross in California. I could have been clearer about that, and wasn't. I will try to be more mindful.

Back to the point, I don't think there is anything pedantic about this - the cross on government territory clearly implies to me that the government tacitly endorses Christianity. That is unacceptable, no matter how small in scale. The thing is, your argument is an attack on the establishment clause as well; its justification is rooted in philosophical perspectives on the relationship between government and religion, not on any utilitarian principle which would require a certain amount of harm to be shown or even claimed.

I'm a touch late, but I'll conclude my point.

I understand that your interpretation of this "establishment clause" necessitates that all instances of religious symbolism on public property, no matter how small or insignificant, must be removed in order to prevent the appearance of preference by the government. That is a strict interpretation, but the one that is most consistent with the text of the document. So, I'm not saying that you're wrong.

I was just arguing for a more tempered and flexible approach. Considering that this monument is significant both as a historical marker and local landmark and does not, in my opinion, imply religious preference by the government, but is rather reflective of the significance of Christianity in American history, I don't see the petition to have it removed as anything more than a strict and even pedantic adherence to those laws.

That's all. It is valid, but not prudent.

[Norstal]

That would make you a defective apologist for both evolution and science, then.

Or maybe I don't have enough authority to say whether something is something and I'm humble enough to admit that.

I'd link a source to a scientist that says evolution is true. That would still be saying "because scientists said so."

Mental illness has nothing to do with the establishment clause, nor do feelings of being philosophically assaulted. The government is prohibited from endorsing religion, and furthermore must take steps to prevent the confusion. Regardless of any official denial of bias which may come from governments, it's no coincidence that these crosses (I'm thinking of Riverside and San Diego counties) have long stood on public land where Christians have dominated the politics. The inference is rather straightforward: all crosses and no Buddhas on public land implies that the government either endorses Christianity or considers it neutral in a way that other religions do not qualify for.

That no such motivation was required to hoist and maintain the structure is irrelevant. The perception that the government favors one religion is readily available, and at least one poster in this thread has pointed out that the monument excludes certain popular sects of Christianity too (which had nothing to do with a feeling of being 'assaulted').

Then they can make that case in the courts. All I'm arguing for is that it's historic and that it should be kept for that.

I can argue that it should be kept because it doesn't endorse a religion, but, you see, that's not what I'm arguing. I never argued for that. In fact, I would say it endorses a religion and I would agree with you on this that it should be demolished for it. However, I never argued that because I don't want it demolished just based on this reason.

Bullshit of the most absurd and self-evident sort.

You don't know the history of California? Or of the US?

I'm well aware.

Cite that these statutes supercede the establishment clause in practice?

I can't and I've already said that the site is not registered so you can make the case that it's not historical based on this fact. I'm just showing other examples of sites being protected despite it's religious overtones.

Because it's not particularly historic, I'm guessing. Junipero Serra went to a lot of places in California, do we need public crosses in every town he passed through?

I already said that it's historical since it was created alongside Riverside's modern infrastructures. If anything, it can be used to be provide historicity of that, to commemorate Riverside entering the modern age.

I'm sure you'll understand if I completely disregard your apparently fabricated evidence, then. I'm not particularly impressed that the city found someone on its payroll willing to say the two planks are historic. I don't think that has any bearing on the establishment clause, or perhaps on much other than the universality of self-preservation.

Of course.

[Mavorpen]

Its not like we consider arguably minor things like old houses local heroes lived in historical landmarks...

Such as?

Oh wait, we totally do. Forgive me if I don't take your definition of what is a landmark seriously.

Why do I need to forgive you for being wrong?

[Dyakovo]

Americans United is not an atheistic organization... It's head is a Reverend of the Church of Christ.

Ah, now I see what you mean. It was more of a reference to proponents of actions, like on NSG and in discussion, which I obviously didn't make clear. Thanks for pointing out that flaw. As I see it, like with Justin Bieber fans being more annoying to me, than Justin Bieber himself, those isolated from this first hand (meaning those part of the organization), debating it online, etc, could be made up by atheists, largely, as well as a mixture of others. THAT is my perception. There will be people here in my hometown disgusted by this, purely because of how it's taken as a religious symbol (I know a few), and how it's propaganda, or government bias.

What my clumsy argument was intended to state, there'll be more frustration somewhere else, unaffected, and I guess that goes without saying, really; there will be that minority with anything in this world. It wasn't an attack on those in the local area or of the organization, though how it reads would actually imply this. I apologise.

Eh... We both misunderstood what the other was saying... It happens.

[Pope Joan]

Privatize that chunk of land. Sell it to a concerned citizen who will preserve the memento. Why not?

You can erect something for the atheists too. Maybe a giant brain or whatever.

[AiliailiA]

Thank god for the ever-vigilant Hypocrisy Monitors of NSG, who are more concerned with the faults of others than expressing their own opinions. God bless you all.

If you bothered to read the rest of the posts on the very same page you'd notice my opinion has been expressed.

Do keep up.

No, I don't think I can. You're too quick for me.

You seem familiar. I think you may be the same person as previously posted as Intangelon. Perhaps a little improved by age, but not much.

I'm going to think a while about how you seem to me, and try to reform my own habits. Because I probably seem that way to other people. Smart and nasty ... a bad combination.

*Ignores*

[Mavorpen]

Privatize that chunk of land. Sell it to a concerned citizen who will preserve the memento. Why not?

You can erect something for the atheists too. Maybe a giant brain or whatever.

Did you just call theists brainless?

[Free South Califas]

Sorry, I never meant to imply that your nationality is relevant to this particular cross in California. I could have been clearer about that, and wasn't. I will try to be more mindful.

Back to the point, I don't think there is anything pedantic about this - the cross on government territory clearly implies to me that the government tacitly endorses Christianity. That is unacceptable, no matter how small in scale. The thing is, your argument is an attack on the establishment clause as well; its justification is rooted in philosophical perspectives on the relationship between government and religion, not on any utilitarian principle which would require a certain amount of harm to be shown or even claimed.

I'm a touch late, but I'll conclude my point.

I understand that your interpretation of this "establishment clause" necessitates that all instances of religious symbolism on pulblic property, no matter how small or insignificant, must be removed in order to prevent the appearance of preference by the government. That is a strict interpretation, but the one that is most consistent with the text of the document. So, I'm not saying that you're wrong.

I was just arguing for a more tempered and flexible approach. Considering that this monument is significant both as a historical marker and local landmark

While your conclusion follows logically from this premise, and you're not the only one who finds the monument historically significant, I am considerably less convinced that it is. The fact that Junipero Serra walked through Riverside does not impress me; he visited many places in California. By the way, here is an example of an actual site of historical significance in Riverside. I'm not saying all historical sites must be equally impressive to be considered historical, but it really pales in comparison. If the Citrus State Historic Park had a statue of Jesus or Quetzalcoatl because the citrus growers thought said deity promised abundant harvests, I would be rather more impressed by the historic significance.

That being said, you are probably right that my interpretation of the establishment clause is stricter than its application in practice. A lot of that has to do more with the current political strength of Christianity, though, as when a W.-Bush-appointed federal judge allowed the cross in San Diego to stand on public grounds (after being bought by a private party).

and does not, in my opinion, imply religious preference by the government, but is rather reflective of the significance of Christianity in American history, I don't see the petition to have it removed as anything more than a strict and even pedantic adherence to those laws.

That's all. It is valid, but not prudent.

Fair enough, but while I would consider making an exception for something akin to the Jesus statue in Rio de Janeiro, I really don't see a case for this cross. To call it art is a stretch, let alone an interesting artifact of history, IMHO.

That would make you a defective apologist for both evolution and science, then.

Or maybe I don't have enough authority to say whether something is something and I'm humble enough to admit that.

Then don't embarrass apologists for science or evolution by making appeals to authority; the rest of us do just fine in those debates without it.

I'd link a source to a scientist that says evolution is true. That would still be saying "because scientists said so."

Only if the source is devoid of any other evidence or explanation. And if it were, the writer's claim to scientific authority would be rather undermined.

Mental illness has nothing to do with the establishment clause, nor do feelings of being philosophically assaulted. The government is prohibited from endorsing religion, and furthermore must take steps to prevent the confusion. Regardless of any official denial of bias which may come from governments, it's no coincidence that these crosses (I'm thinking of Riverside and San Diego counties) have long stood on public land where Christians have dominated the politics. The inference is rather straightforward: all crosses and no Buddhas on public land implies that the government either endorses Christianity or considers it neutral in a way that other religions do not qualify for.

That no such motivation was required to hoist and maintain the structure is irrelevant. The perception that the government favors one religion is readily available, and at least one poster in this thread has pointed out that the monument excludes certain popular sects of Christianity too (which had nothing to do with a feeling of being 'assaulted').

Then they can make that case in the courts. All I'm arguing for is that it's historic and that it should be kept for that.

I can argue that it should be kept because it doesn't endorse a religion, but, you see, that's not what I'm arguing. I never argued for that. In fact, I would say it endorses a religion and I would agree with you on this that it should be demolished for it.

I have never argued for the cross to be destroyed; exactly and explicitly the opposite, actually.

Cite that these statutes supercede the establishment clause in practice?

I can't and I've already said that the site is not registered so you can make the case that it's not historical based on this fact. I'm just showing other examples of sites being protected despite it's religious overtones.

You concede these examples are pretty much irrelevant then?

Because it's not particularly historic, I'm guessing. Junipero Serra went to a lot of places in California, do we need public crosses in every town he passed through?

I already said that it's historical since it was created alongside Riverside's modern infrastructures. If anything, it can be used to be provide historicity of that, to commemorate Riverside entering the modern age.

Hmm, that is more substantial, though I still see it as far more significant as an endorsement of religion than a historical marker. I can see how YMMV, though.

Privatize that chunk of land. Sell it to a concerned citizen who will preserve the memento. Why not?

You can erect something for the atheists too. Maybe a giant brain or whatever.

Did you just call theists brainless?

No, but neither did ze claim that atheists are immune to crucifixion. (Unless we drink the anecdote first, of course.)

[Czechanada]

I'm honestly sick and furious at the destructive actions of all these immoral atheists. They've been causing trouble for over thousands of years in their quest to force everyone to live a cold, emotionless, and hyper-rationalized existence.

We should hunt them all to extinction. SInce they love being appalled by crosses so much, let's crucify each of them and put one on the corner of every street. Let's see the look on their faces when they stand before the judgement of God.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Riverside, California is probably not on most of NSGers radars. It's part of what Californians term the Inland Empire along with San Bernardino, Yucaipa, Redlands, Ontario and a few other forgettable towns and cities. It's most known for being the home of UCRiverside, the Parent Navel Orange, smog, Victoria Avenue, the Mission Inn, smog and citrus. Oh, and did I mention smog?

Anyway, there's a hill in the center of all this called Mt. Rubidoux. It's the site of 4th of July fireworks that invariably start fires, Easter Sunrise Services and a cross. This cross has been on the top of that hill for as long as memory serves. It's a landmark, it has history. It's, in the eyes of many atheists, an infamous symbol of "religion".

I'm an atheist myself, but I can understand how many Christians feel about this. The cross is non-demoninational, it's been there for years, it's esthetically pleasing, it's a historical landmark, it's part of Riverside's tradition.

When does a piece of history become an offensive symbol of some oppression, real or imagined? Are the militant atheists justified in destroying a piece of history just because what it symbolizes offends them? Are they on the same level as the Taliban, who destroyed statues of the Buddha because they were not Islamic?

My own opinion? The cross has stood for years on top of that hill, offending no one. It's hardly obvious; unless you either climb or drive to the top of the hill expressly to see it, you wouldn't even know it's there. I'm really rather ashamed of this particular brand of atheist that can find nothing better to do with their time and minds than find offense with history and it's physical manifestations. I think they're just looking for trouble and quite willing to create it if they can't find it.

http://www.pe.com/local-news/riverside- ... hering.ece

One of the comments on the article you linked has a perfect solution:

Transfer ownership and responsibility of the cross and everything within a 2' radius to a church - St. Andrew's Orthodox seems like a logical choice - and this conundrum is solved without a trial. But of course that won't actually happen since it makes too much sense

I feel like it's not necessary for the cross to be taken down. Transferring ownership would put an end to the bickering, whereas just leaving it up on public land would leave the door open for people with too much time on their hands to continue complaining.

[Tmutarakhan]

Junipero Serra went to a lot of places in California, do we need public crosses in every town he passed through?

The pathway that he blazed and walked repeatedly was maintained by the government for a long time as "El Camino Real" (the royal road) and where it is now paved as a street it often still bears that name-- and, wherever highways (large stretches of the 101, for example) or other roads (Main Street in Los Gatos, for example) follow Serra's old trail, there are markings to indicate that it was the old path, not in the form of crosses but mission bells. The "bells" of course were used at the missions to indicate when church services were: does this make them religious symbols? Is it impermissible that the government marks the historical trail in a way that reminds everyone that it was religious people who blazed the trail?

[Nazi Flower Power]

I'm honestly sick and furious at the destructive actions of all these immoral atheists. They've been causing trouble for over thousands of years in their quest to force everyone to live a cold, emotionless, and hyper-rationalized existence.

We should hunt them all to extinction. SInce they love being appalled by crosses so much, let's crucify each of them and put one on the corner of every street. Let's see the look on their faces when they stand before the judgement of God.

Dude, come off it. What thousands of years? What about all the atheists who don't think it's necessary for the cross to come down?

Seriously...

[Mavorpen]

I'm honestly sick and furious at the destructive actions of all these immoral atheists. They've been causing trouble for over thousands of years in their quest to force everyone to live a cold, emotionless, and hyper-rationalized existence.

We should hunt them all to extinction. SInce they love being appalled by crosses so much, let's crucify each of them and put one on the corner of every street. Let's see the look on their faces when they stand before the judgement of God.

Dude, come off it. What thousands of years? What about all the atheists who don't think it's necessary for the cross to come down?

Seriously...

It's satire.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Dude, come off it. What thousands of years? What about all the atheists who don't think it's necessary for the cross to come down?

Seriously...

It's satire.

If so, it is really shitty satire.

[Free South Califas]

Junipero Serra went to a lot of places in California, do we need public crosses in every town he passed through?

The pathway that he blazed and walked repeatedly was maintained by the government for a long time as "El Camino Real" (the royal road) and where it is now paved as a street it often still bears that name-- and, wherever highways (large stretches of the 101, for example) or other roads (Main Street in Los Gatos, for example) follow Serra's old trail, there are markings to indicate that it was the old path, not in the form of crosses but mission bells. The "bells" of course were used at the missions to indicate when church services were: does this make them religious symbols?

To me, bells are more than ambiguous enough. There's an extended middle ground between bells and crosses, I think it's fair to say.

Is it impermissible that the government marks the historical trail in a way that reminds everyone that it was religious people who blazed the trail?

With a monument that specifically, in a visually unambiguous way, celebrates Christianity and excludes the religions of the people who Serra's coreligionists invaded and subjugated through brutal, unchecked social control? Yes, that seems pretty inappropriate for a pluralistic society which prohibits government endorsement of any particular religion.

[Mavorpen]

It's satire.

If so, it is really shitty satire.

I'm aware of this.

[Czechanada]

It's satire.

If so, it is really shitty satire.

That's not a very nice thing to say.

[Dyakovo]

If so, it is really shitty satire.

That's not a very nice thing to say.

You're expecting a Nazi to be nice?

[Nazi Flower Power]

If so, it is really shitty satire.

That's not a very nice thing to say.

Neither was your post. The stuff you said was over the top, but the way you said it was in the style of a serious argument.

You need to make the style more Biblethumpy and weird, like, "God will smite the atheists for this effrontery! Beware oh ye who seek to oppress us with your 'separation of church and state'! God wills it!"

[Czechanada]

That's not a very nice thing to say.

You're expecting a Nazi to be nice?

Well, with the flower power, yes.

[Paixao]

So when are the secular Brits going to dig up stone-henge?

After all, that's not just a religious symbol but a filthy PAGAN religion with human sacrifices and sun worship!

Edited for appalling typos.


NB: Joke. Pagans are just the same as any other religion.

[Cannot think of a name]

I'm an atheist myself, but I can understand how many Christians feel about this. The cross is non-demoninational, it's been there for years, it's esthetically pleasing, it's a historical landmark, it's part of Riverside's tradition.

I'm not sure how being 'non-denominational' matters.

When does a piece of history become an offensive symbol of some oppression, real or imagined? Are the militant atheists justified in destroying a piece of history just because what it symbolizes offends them? Are they on the same level as the Taliban, who destroyed statues of the Buddha because they were not Islamic?

That's a little hyperbolic, when I follow the story from your link the options seem to be selling the chunk of land the cross is on. Other options, I imagine, would include moving the cross to private land. To compare the petitioning the government to be as neutral on religion as it is supposed to be suddenly becoming the Taliban blowing up centuries old statues is just a little hysterical. Lets be clear, we're talking about a cross that barely made the century mark itself.

Yeah, there are other fights to be had. But maybe if you're an atheist or other in Riverside you're just a little tired of having yourself be represented by that cross. Outside of Riverside I'm not sure I should even give a shit. It's not like I'd drive through it and go, "Man, I wish I could have gone through this town when these two pieces of wood nailed together on the horizon was on land owned by the city..."

[Dyakovo]

So when are the secular Brits going to dig up stone-henge?

After all, that's not just a religions but a filthy PAGAN religion with human sacrifices and sun worship!


NB: Joke. Pagans are just the same as any other religion.