October 14, 2009

A Cross We All Should Stand Behind

I think we can argue about whether or not a cross as a war memorial on public land is appropriate or constitutional – an issue which the Supreme Court is wrestling with right now. But I don’t see how anyone except for individuals or groups with an active hatred of Christianity can object to this one that is causing a dispute in a different part of California.

Before Monterey replaces the Portol -Crespi cross on Del Monte Beach, it wants to raise a war chest to defend the city's action against possible lawsuits — a move an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer calls "a very bizarre decision."

After holding a public hearing on the cross issue Tuesday night, the council came out of closed session saying its members were unanimous in wanting the cross replaced. The council said it marks the historic site where explorer Don Gaspar de Portol and Father Juan Crespi raised a wooden cross in December 1769 as a signal to the supply ship San Jose, expected to arrive from Mexico.

The newer cross, erected on the dunes between Roberts Lake and the beach in December 1969, was set there to mark the bicentennial of that event. Sometime during the night of Sept. 18, vandals sawed the cross off at its base and left it lying in the sand.

The council motion seems to hedge the city's bets in restoring it. It states: "The City Council does not condone vandalism. Because of the historical significance of the cross, it is the City Council's desire to restore the cross. To that end, once a legal defense fund is established by the community and $50,000 is raised, we will proceed with the restoration of the cross."

Got that, folks? This cross was placed on the site for one very simple reason – to the early exploration of the area by Spanish explorers who erected a cross on the site. This would seem to be, from a First Amendment perspective, a no-brainer. There is nothing religious about this cross – it is unquestionably the recreation of a historical event, which makes its erection a bona fide secular act.

But that isn’t good enough for the ACLU cretins who want to keep the cross from going back up. Seems to me that they simply wish to expunge the symbol from public land even when it serves a valid secular purpose – and that they probably won’t be happy until they have banned the letter “t” and the plus sign from all public facilities.

Posted by: Greg at 11:04 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.

1 This cross doesn't serve a secular purpose that any reasonable person passing by could discern. It's a 20-foot cross visible from the highway, from the beach and from the recreation trail adjacent to it. It took the city historians weeks to research the history of the original cross and they couldn't determine that the spot chosen in 1969 was accurate. It might be approximate. Furthermore, a cross of the size of the one erected in 1969 would weight almost 2000 pounds! There's no way that two tired, malnourished 18th century Spanish soldiers could have put up a cross any where near the size of that one. It's inadequate as an historical marker, because it isn't accurate. It's inappropriate on city land because it's a CROSS. Even if it has a secular purpose, you can't tell what it is by looking at it. Your analysis not only shows a shallow understanding of this particular situation, it demonstrates a feeble understanding of history. Were you home schooled?

Posted by: Jeff W. at Mon Oct 19 07:44:22 2009 (XZWie)

2 1) Gee, aren't you a condescending little hate-monger. 2) No, I wasn't home schooled. You, on the other hand, were clearly hate-schooled. 3) Are you really suggesting that the failure to exactly replicate what was put up makes the commemoration invalid? that the failure to know the exact spot and the choice to therefore make a good approximation makes the commemoration invalid? If so, take that matter up with the national park service and their reconstructions of the forts at Jamestown and Fort Clatsop, each of which is an approximate placement .

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Oct 21 22:18:55 2009 (2MEFn)

3 Sometime during the night of Sept. 18, vandals sawed the cross off at its base and left it lying in the sand.

Posted by: Consuelo at Thu Jul 19 01:27:03 2012 (sVayS)

4 There is nothing religious about this cross – it is unquestionably the recreation of a historical event, which makes its erection a bona fide secular act.

Posted by: Jolie Corral at Wed Oct 3 01:54:59 2012 (zr8MG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
9kb generated in CPU 0.0044, elapsed 0.016 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0131 seconds, 33 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]