Unwelcome religious symbol or historical landmark

[Free South Califas]

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.

Probably never, since they don't have the First Amendment.

[Dyakovo]

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..."

Not to mention the detail that Reverend Barry Lynn is hardly an atheist, 'militant' or otherwise.

[Condunum]

I really just don't see the issue here.

[Dyakovo]

I really just don't see the issue here.

It is a religious symbol on government land, maintained at government expense.

[Cannot think of a name]

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

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..."

Not to mention the detail that Reverend Barry Lynn is hardly an atheist, 'militant' or otherwise.

Sometimes I think the laziness to have not read the entire thread before making my post is a self defense mechanism to save my eyeballs from excessive roll extension.

So this whole thing is actually the act of a religious person who understands that the separation of church and state is as much to protect the religious as it is the non-religious? Well, hell...

[Cetacea]

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.

so who gets to determine what is or is not a religious symbol? why is a big concrete t more a religious symbol than a mission bell?
surely a public call to worship (the bell) is more inappropriate that a crucifix which was used to punish criminals.

[Dyakovo]

Not to mention the detail that Reverend Barry Lynn is hardly an atheist, 'militant' or otherwise.

Sometimes I think the laziness to have not read the entire thread before making my post is a self defense mechanism to save my eyeballs from excessive roll extension.

So this whole thing is actually the act of a religious person who understands that the separation of church and state is as much to protect the religious as it is the non-religious? Well, hell...

Yup... But don't worry, if you don't immediately jump on the band wagon of hate for "'militant' atheists", you too will be branded as one.

[Dyakovo]

so who gets to determine what is or is not a religious symbol? why is a big concrete t more a religious symbol than a mission bell?
surely a public call to worship (the bell) is more inappropriate that a crucifix which was used to punish criminals.

Well, for one a cross is much more recognizable as representing Christianity than a bell is, what with it being the religion's symbol and all...

[Free South Califas]

so who gets to determine what is or is not a religious symbol?

The judicial branch. That kind of thing is its explicit justification for existence.

why is a big concrete t more a religious symbol than a mission bell?

Bells are used to alert people to many different kinds of things. In Riverside, California, a crucifix on public land has an extremely specific and clear meaning.

surely a public call to worship (the bell) is more inappropriate that a crucifix which was used to punish criminals.

[/quote]
Non sequitur. Besides, this is not a penology exhibit.

[The Black Forrest]

It doesn't matter if it is a historical landmark. By the constitution, the government cannot support one religion over another, or be seen to be doing so. A cross means support for christianity, and is thus illegal on government owned land.

Which is why the Ten Commandments have been removed from the walls of the Supreme Court building.

Wait...

*sighs* I bet you really don't know why it was allowed to stay.

Here is a hint: It's not because it's the 10 commandments.

I will wait while you look it up.

[The Black Forrest]

Like I haven't already debunked the claim that I think anything religious cannot be historic...

But you think this isn't historic. And you're wrong. People who are way, way more qualified to make this decision (a Riverside historian) say you're wrong.

The problem is you keep pretending like your right, as if your opinion on the matter meant anything.

Ok what exactly is the historical significance?

[The Black Forrest]

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.

I think it's a tad more complicated.

I think there was questions of access and wanting to keep the land public, etc.

Also, I want to say this was attempted before on another case and was shot down. But, that is my scraggly memory so I am not sure......

[The Blaatschapen]

I don't think anybody was denying that irritation is the same concept no matter who is experiencing it.

And destroying something in irritation is just silly and usually frowned on in anyone over age 2.

Tell that to the NS raiders.

[Free South Califas]

And destroying something in irritation is just silly and usually frowned on in anyone over age 2.

Tell that to the NS raiders.

And nobody wants to destroy the cross.

[Tekania]

This has nothing to do with bashing religion or whether it is "cool" to do so.
Religious displays on government land are unconstitutional.

Not that cut and dry, sorry. The courts disagree with you.

[Free South Califas]

This has nothing to do with bashing religion or whether it is "cool" to do so.
Religious displays on government land are unconstitutional.

Not that cut and dry, sorry. The courts disagree with you.

Which courts are these, and how is their precedent relevant to this case exactly?

[Grave_n_idle]

I really just don't see the issue here.

It is a religious symbol on government land, maintained at government expense.

And that should really be the end of the discussion - unless the government is going to start maintaining every religious symbol or structure (in which case, I have some plans for an Atheist Cathedral I need to talk to someone about).

Simplest solution seems to be that the parcel of land should be sold or donated to some Christian or historian group (preferably a local one, or one with a local branch - for maintenance purposes).

People comparing respect for the separation of church and state, to bombing places of worship or monuments should be ashamed of themselves.

[Grave_n_idle]

This has nothing to do with bashing religion or whether it is "cool" to do so.
Religious displays on government land are unconstitutional.

Not that cut and dry, sorry. The courts disagree with you.

That being so - all it means is that at BEST, there's controversy.

[Bottle]

People comparing respect for the separation of church and state, to bombing places of worship or monuments should be ashamed of themselves.

You'd think the fact that atheists are not, you know, bombing this cross would be a factor in whether or not they are compared to religious sects who bomb the monuments of other religions.

Yet here we are.

[Tekania]

Not that cut and dry, sorry. The courts disagree with you.

Which courts are these, and how is their precedent relevant to this case exactly?

I was merely commenting on "religious displays on government land are unconstitutional"...... the courts opinions on that matter are not nearly cut and dry. There are other elements of context which define the constitutionality of the religious displays upon public lands. I have yet to make any opinion with the context of this particular display, as I do not know all relevant materials associated with this display yet, and will not be able to till after work (as I am at present confined to posting from my phone).

[The Joseon Dynasty]

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.

Then is seems as if this problem reduces to the simple question of what constitutes "historical significance". If, by your own admission, religiosity is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to have a monument removed under the "establishment clause" - Cristo Redentor being the counter-example - we need to determine what other conditions would be needed in order to justify this petition.

It seems as though a lack of historical significance and a lack of artistic value are needed, too; both of which are very subjective conditions. How would you propose that we determine whether a particular monument meets them?

I would be inclined to suggest that it would be up to local historians and even the local people to decide whether or not it should represent their history, and whether or not it adds artistic value to their locality.

[The Land of the Red Rainbow]

I see the cross as, among other things, a symbol of the millennium where the religion it symbolizes was taken seriously and used to attempt exterminating gays, and the oppression, hate and prejudice that continues today everywhere on Earth.

I will not be missing any crosses.

[Cetacea]

I see the cross as, among other things, a symbol of the millennium where the religion it symbolizes was taken seriously and used to attempt exterminating gays, and the oppression, hate and prejudice that continues today everywhere on Earth.
.

Awesome so you agree that it isn't favouring one religion as everyone was affected by the history. So yep lets keep the cross as a historic symbol ...

[Warshania]

Atheist here and I'm also disappointed with the "accomplishments" of militant Atheists, both in real life and the internet. In this case, I side with those who are against it's removal.

[Grave_n_idle]

I see the cross as, among other things, a symbol of the millennium where the religion it symbolizes was taken seriously and used to attempt exterminating gays, and the oppression, hate and prejudice that continues today everywhere on Earth.
.

Awesome so you agree that it isn't favouring one religion as everyone was affected by the history.

Everyone was affected. Not everyone was affected equally.

(Jews being massacred in Lincoln at the hands of 'Christians', in 1255, for example. Both the Jews and Christians were affected, but only the Jews were massacred).