offended by something in the middle of nowhere

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeuBB_mOFIA

A WWI memorial in the middle of the California desert stands covered up due to one guy in Oregon. This video goes on a bit, but the point gets made.

More of a head shaker than anything.

Harold O. said:

More of a head shaker than anything.

Click to expand...

I have a feeling this is going to be one of those threads...

Anyhoo, it's worth noting that this memorial is, in fact, a Christian cross. And it's on government property. This is why it's an issue.

The Constitution's 1st amendment is famously vague about things like this, although most modern interpretations would find (and have found) it against this sort of thing.

California's state constitution, on the other hand, spells things out pretty clearly:

Neither the Legislature, nor any county, city and county, township, school district, or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation, or pay from any public fund whatever, or grant anything to or in aid of any religious sect, church, creed, or sectarian purpose, or help to support or sustain any school, college, university, hospital, or other institution controlled by any religious creed, church, or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the State, or any city, city and county, town, or other municipal corporation for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever;

Click to expand...

Whether one feels that the removal of the cross is "right" or "wrong", I think it's pretty plain that, under the current laws of the state and country, a case can certainly be made for relocating it.

To paint it as a fight between those who want to honor veterans and those who don't, or between those who are "offended by it" and those who aren't, is not really fair, in my personal opinion. Plus it misses the real point of the case.

JJ

You said it yourself. California law states "...shall ever make an appropriation, or pay from any public fund whatever,...". California didn't provide the land, doesn't have to pay for the upkeep, doesn't really have to do anything.

Have you ever been in a situation where an employee of Company A insists on the letter of the law for nothing other than procedure's sake? As in making you worm through the line ropes when there is no line...that sort of thing. It could just be a matter of time before the GPS in your car alerts the traffic guys to send a ticket when you go 45 in a 40 zone or roll through a stop sign in the neighborhood.

Sounds like this cross was put there 75 years ago. It's out in the middle of nowhere. Hardly a "slippery slope" monument, or there would be thousands of them by now. Our government, for all else, has yet to declare any state religion, litmus test for officials, or citizen indoctrination.

I think if you want to be offended, there are ample opportunities to be so. I also think that after 75 years, a simple cross on a rock in the middle of the desert doesn't hurt anybody.

**********

From here out, if you want to discuss this topic further with me, I prefer to do it off Forum. Ukuleles are only offensive when you pronounce ukulele wrong (heathens!).

Harold O. said:

You said it yourself. California law states "...shall ever make an appropriation, or pay from any public fund whatever,...". California didn't provide the land, doesn't have to pay for the upkeep, doesn't really have to do anything.

Click to expand...

My understanding, which of course could be wrong, is that the land does, in fact, belong to the government.

That's pretty much the whole crux of it (no etymological pun intended). If the cross were on private property, they wouldn't be able to order for it to be covered up. And the whole case would've been (justifiably) thrown right out from the beginning.

JJ