Unwelcome religious symbol or historical landmark

[Norstal]

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.

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.

Alright, I used a bad example. I was thinking along the lines of those who keep repeating that abortion is unconstitutional despite SCOTUS ruling on it. Like this, as with what's unconstitutional and constitutional, are cases that only authorities can make.

I can't do that with science, so I'll drop that.

You concede these examples are pretty much irrelevant then?

Your objection was that the adjective "historical" was irrelevant in the removal of a site. Was it not? And it isn't like they can't apply for the historical status either. It seems to me that the only reason why it hasn't registered yet is because no one nominated it yet, but I could be wrong.

[Free South Califas]

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).

I appreciate your response, especially from a mobile device. However, isn't the above true of almost every extant clause in the Constitution? They all require continuous interpretation and re-interpretation. It has never been true that, for example, Congress is absolutely prohibited from restraining your free speech in any way. Why should the establishment clause be any different?

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).


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.

That's fine to the extent that the consequences are local. Unfortunately, this little Riverside cross is saying something about the federal government and how it interprets the First Amendment, too. To answer your question, I would propose that the Supreme Court hear testimony from philosophers who specialize in aesthetics--hopefully open-minded ones--as well as historians and social psychologists. Ultimately, especially depending on the findings of the latter profession, it may be found that the cross represents their history and adds artistic value to their locality but that these effects are outweighed by the social harms in context which may be caused by a possible perception of the cross as endorsing a specific group of Christians.

Although I mentioned artistic value and historic import above, it occurs to me now that the social psychology is actually where I would most easily be convinced to drop the matter. If it can be adequately demonstrated that almost all Riverside residents of diverse faith/skeptical traditions generally interpret it as not an endorsement, I shall concede that inaction would almost certainly be justified, although I would still support the process of raising the question to SCOTUS and those perceptions could change as well.

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.

Militant atheists like Rev. Barry Lynn, who brought the complaint in this case? Rev. Barry Lynn, of the Church of Christ?

[Gauthier]

So... let's push for the demolition of the Old North Church while we're at it.

[Tekania]

So... let's push for the demolition of the Old North Church while we're at it.

That building is privately owned still. But if it came to it, due to its historic significance, I would want to make it a national park and be preserved.

[Tekania]

Rev. Barry Lynn, of the Church of Christ?

It should be noted that Rev. Barry Lynn is of the United Church of Christ, which definitely should not be confused with the a reverend of a Church of Christ. Though their names are similar, the views of the two groups are so disparate that that would be like mixing up the Westboro Baptist Church with a Unitarian church, so I think it deserves some specific correction.

[The Black Forrest]

As to the historical claims:

They claim to be the oldest, continuous outdoor, Easter Sunrise Service.

The Moravian Church in Salem will be holding it's 241st this year.

http://www.wxii12.com/Thousands-Attend- ... index.html

[Czechanada]

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!"

But satire is serious business.

[Free South Califas]

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.

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.

Alright, I used a bad example. I was thinking along the lines of those who keep repeating that abortion is unconstitutional despite SCOTUS ruling on it. Like this, as with what's unconstitutional and constitutional, are cases that only authorities can make.

I can't do that with science, so I'll drop that.

Your honesty and humility are much appreciated, and I hope I prove equal to the standard. You certainly are correct that only authorities can officially rule on what is considered unconstitutional and constitutional by the government; however, we are free to develop our own interpretations, and in the absence of any clear statement on the matter, you must admit that the case against a cross on public land might have a bit of a head start in constitutional law, all else being equal. (I know all else isn't equal, so this is a new claim from me). I could be wrong in the sense that SCOTUS could decide the cross is fine next month, but they and I could reasonably disagree on how to interpret the Constitution. For example, I support a more rigorous interpretation of free speech and assembly rights than they do; it doesn't make me 'wrong', just a dissenter.

You concede these examples are pretty much irrelevant then?

Your objection was that the adjective "historical" was irrelevant in the removal of a site. Was it not? And it isn't like they can't apply for the historical status either. It seems to me that the only reason why it hasn't registered yet is because no one nominated it yet, but I could be wrong.

[/quote]Well, personally, yes, to me it matters little; quantity of secular aesthetic effect, and a well-founded assurance that Riversiders feel not-endorsed-to, would be more persuasive to me. However, I will concede that it is perfectly reasonable for you to hold the cross in higher historical esteem than the local governments currently do, and that historic import could perhaps reasonably be part of (not the entire) justification for inaction.

That being said, there are a great many Christian groups in Riverside County, and the fact that none of them--nor anyone else--has seen fit to nominate the cross as a registered historic monument should be fairly telling. Unless I misunderstand the nomination process; it's not something I"m specifically familiar with.

So... let's push for the demolition of the Old North Church while we're at it.

No one has advocated the demolition of this cross, nor has anyone suggested that the establishment clause entitles the government to blow up privately-owned churches.

Rev. Barry Lynn, of the Church of Christ?

It should be noted that Rev. Barry Lynn is of the United Church of Christ, which definitely should not be confused with the a reverend of a Church of Christ. Though their names are similar, the views of the two groups are so disparate that that would be like mixing up the Westboro Baptist Church with a Unitarian church, so I think it deserves some specific correction.

Much appreciated, thanks. That's twice I've gotten his sect wrong, unless "Baptist" is an appropriate demonym for a UCC representative.

[The Black Forrest]

Much appreciated, thanks. That's twice I've gotten his sect wrong, unless "Baptist" is an appropriate demonym for a UCC representative.

That's probably my fault. For some reason I was thinking he was a baptist.......

[Tekania]

After viewing relevant images of the cross and the historical context. I have come to the conclusion that while there is some historical significance to the California area in regards Fra. Serra, it does appear, however, that the historical elements (which are barely mentioned on the site) of it are vastly overshadowed by the religious theme, so that does present elements which do give validity to those opposing its remaining there.

[Galborg]

Are you sure the cross-burners are atheists? They sound like Taliban to me.

Atheism is the doctrine that God never happened; Taliban is the doctrine that non-islamiq religions never happened and all evidence of non-islamiq religions ever happening must be destroyed.

[Arlia]

removed

[Runfin]

Are you sure the cross-burners are atheists? They sound like Taliban to me.

Atheism is the doctrine that God never happened; Taliban is the doctrine that non-islamiq religions never happened and all evidence of non-islamiq religions ever happening must be destroyed.

You haven't read anything that's been stated in this thread have you?

[Galborg]

Are you sure the cross-burners are atheists? They sound like Taliban to me.

Atheism is the doctrine that God never happened; Taliban is the doctrine that non-islamiq religions never happened and all evidence of non-islamiq religions ever happening must be destroyed.

You haven't read anything that's been stated in this thread have you?

I read MOST of page 1 and MOST of the last page.

That is what one does with a thread.

Did I miss anything pertinent?

[Free South Califas]

Are you sure the cross-burners are atheists? They sound like Taliban to me.

No. Nobody proposes burning or otherwise damaging the cross, and I'm sure you don't mean to compare The Rev. Barry Lynn from the United Church of Christ to the Taliban, do you? Might want to rethink that little bit of slander, considering that Rev. Lynn is acting in defense of the establishment clause that directly affects his religion's freedom to be represented on public land.

Atheism is the doctrine that God never happened; Taliban is the doctrine that non-islamiq religions never happened and all evidence of non-islamiq religions ever happening must be destroyed.

Wow, is this really how you reason? You need to check this out: http://afterall.net/illogic/c76/

[Galborg]

The cross is an historical monument. There are 5 choices: destroy it now = Taliban; wait for it to rot away = Taliban lite; endow the Cross maintenance Comite with enough money to repair it = MY opinion.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, the link did not state Father Lynn's opinion. Ifn he agrees with me, I like him and vice versa.

When Taliban suicide bombed the Buddhist statues, heir intention was to deny that History ever happened. Every church asserts that theirs is the TRUE church. Suicide bombing the Buddhist statues was Taliban asserting NOT that Buddhism is a wrong Church, but asserting that Buddhism never happened. They would say that wouldn't they?

[The Black Forrest]

The cross is an historical monument. There are 5 choices: destroy it now = Taliban; wait for it to rot away = Taliban lite; endow the Cross maintenance Comite with enough money to repair it = MY opinion.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, the link did not state Father Lynn's opinion. Ifn he agrees with me, I like him and vice versa.

When Taliban suicide bombed the Buddhist statues, heir intention was to deny that History ever happened. Every church asserts that theirs is the TRUE church. Suicide bombing the Buddhist statues was Taliban asserting NOT that Buddhism is a wrong Church, but asserting that Buddhism never happened. They would say that wouldn't they?

Taliban? Like the imagery do we?

The Taliban didn't suicide bomb the Buddhist statues.

How exactly is the cross a historical monument?

[Free South Califas]

The cross is an historical monument. There are 5 choices: destroy it now = Taliban; wait for it to rot away = Taliban lite; endow the Cross maintenance Comite with enough money to repair it = MY opinion.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, the link did not state Father Lynn's opinion. Ifn he agrees with me, I like him and vice versa.

Hey there Mr. Observant, the Rev. Barry Lynn is the 'militant atheist' who brought this case. Could you pay any less attention? Somehow, I think Rev. Lynn has little interest in erasing Christianity from the landscape of Riverside.

When Taliban suicide bombed the Buddhist statues, heir intention was to deny that History ever happened. Every church asserts that theirs is the TRUE church. Suicide bombing the Buddhist statues was Taliban asserting NOT that Buddhism is a wrong Church, but asserting that Buddhism never happened. They would say that wouldn't they?

Nope. You didn't read that link I gave you, did you?

[Geilinor]

Yes, that's a great analogy. Militant atheists get overly offended by something, but argue quite legitimately that public land shouldn't play host to specific religious signs. That's just like Al Qaeda detonating a shrapnel bomb in Angkor Wat.

Well, are they historical landmarks, or are they offensive symbols?

Both.

[Tekania]

The cross is an historical monument. There are 5 choices: destroy it now = Taliban; wait for it to rot away = Taliban lite; endow the Cross maintenance Comite with enough money to repair it = MY opinion.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, the link did not state Father Lynn's opinion. Ifn he agrees with me, I like him and vice versa.

1. You forgot the option of selling the land the cross sits on to a private organization.
2. Reverend Barry Lynn is a United Church of Christ minister. As such, "Father" is an inappropriate honorific, appropriate would simply be to refer to him as "minister", "pastor" or "reverend". Reverend Lynn simply wants to cross taken care of in terms of its violation of the establishment clause. How the city decides to handle the situation (removal or sale) is not important to him.

[Manahakatouki]

I've never really been a militant anything, so I find it hard to relate to stories like this...

We have many rocks and plaques that state blessings from God, God is almighty, yadda yadda yadda throughout our little town...

As an atheist, if someone told me they were tearing them down for any reason based off religion, I would be equally upset with people of faith in our town...

[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.

Did you just call theists brainless?

Perhaps unintentionally. I was just thinking of a symbol that might appeal, that's all. I think Asimov was convinced that all humanity needed in order to achieve the true and the beautiful was a sufficient increase in brainpower, intelligence.

[Dyakovo]

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.

Yup, gotta hate 'militant' atheists like Reverend Barry Lynn...

---

Are you sure the cross-burners are atheists? They sound like Taliban to me.

Atheism is the doctrine that God never happened; Taliban is the doctrine that non-islamiq religions never happened and all evidence of non-islamiq religions ever happening must be destroyed.

1: No-one is suggesting burning the cross.
2: Reverend Barry Lynn is not an atheist.
3: That isn't what atheism is.
4: The Taliban is not a doctrine.

Congratulations, you managed to not get a single thing right.

[Imsogone]

Did you just call theists brainless?

Perhaps unintentionally. I was just thinking of a symbol that might appeal, that's all. I think Asimov was convinced that all humanity needed in order to achieve the true and the beautiful was a sufficient increase in brainpower, intelligence.

I understand that, in military cemetaries, when the deceased was a declared atheist, they use the atom symbol on the marker. Azimov might also approve of that.

[Dyakovo]

Perhaps unintentionally. I was just thinking of a symbol that might appeal, that's all. I think Asimov was convinced that all humanity needed in order to achieve the true and the beautiful was a sufficient increase in brainpower, intelligence.

I understand that, in military cemetaries, when the deceased was a declared atheist, they use the atom symbol on the marker. Azimov might also approve of that.

So no comment on your characterization of Reverend Barry Lynn (Head of Americans United) of the United Church of Christ as a 'militant' atheist?