Thieves take controversial Mojave Desert cross

[MindPilot]

Source: San Diego Union-Tribune

MOJAVE NATIONAL PRESERVE, Calif. — Authorities say a 7-foot-tall cross in California's Mojave Desert that sparked a U.S. Supreme Court dispute has been stolen.

The National Park Service says someone cut the metal bolts holding the metal-pipe cross to the top of Sunrise Rock and made off with it Sunday night or before dawn on Monday.

Veterans groups say they're outraged at what they consider the desecration of a symbol that was erected in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars to honor World War I dead.

The cross was challenged by critics who say a religious symbol shouldn't be allowed on public land but the U.S. Supreme Court last month refused to order it removed.

Read more: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/11/thieves-take-controversial-mojave-desert-cross/

---

Of course the comments are already blaming this on the "sore loser" liberal Atheists.

[T Wolf]

1. Maybe Gawd took it up to heaven to give to the veterans directly. nt

[superconnected]

62. Had it been an athiests sign they would have scream intolerable Christians, just like they DID here.

[truthisfreedom]

2. In other news, local metal recyclers announced a large influx of pipe and other metal objects last

night...

[rocktivity]

5. You've reminded me of a story I read about a city in Ethiopia

which underwent a pair of simultaneous crime waves--vandals smashing green traffic lights, and con artists selling phony emeralds!

:rofl:
rocktivity

[RedstDem]

3. It looked to be a bit of an eyesore

the pictures I've seen of it, the cross has a 'thrown together" look. the outcropping of rock looks better without it.
Why not place a plaque in the location commemorating such and such or whomever, like the rest of our parks.

[Dogtown]

7. It's about "branding"

If the Christians can't sneak in their trade-mark, how can they later claim that ours is a "Christian nation"?

[anigbrowl]

8. I don't agree. It's been there for >70 years, long before culture wars

So it was on Federal land, and the court decision approved the sale of the patch of land on which it stands to the veteran's group in question. I do not have a problem with this. the cross was erected to commemorate deaths of servicemen in WW1 and it's a reasonable assumption that many of them are christian. This is no more an establishment of religion than the little crosses or stars of David or other religious symbols on gravestones in Arlington cemetary.

Stealing the cross to make a political point is deeply irresponsible, and insulting to those whose family members served and died in that war.

BTW I'm not Christian, but an atheist. I don't want the government to establish religion, but nor do I support suppression of it.

[happygoluckytoyou]

16. "HAVE YOU FOUND JESUS?"..... "no, but if we do, we now have a place to put him"

[defendandprotect]

20. Funny -- !!

:evilgrin:

[happygoluckytoyou]

47. at least if they had stolen a copy of the 10 commandments, they would know thou shouldn't have

much too much too much material here ... i'm going into sensory overload ...

[defendandprotect]

80. Sigh . . . thanks for the break from reality!!

:evilgrin: :party: :boring: :scared: :nuke:

The usual mixed-bag day -- !!

[Kolesar]

26. Ew

Gotta work that one into holiday dinner conversation...

[Hestia]

118. He was behind the couch the whole time...

[burning rain]

18. The culture war's been raging since the beginning of this country.

It just seemed like it began in the sixties, notably with the Supreme Court barring prayer in the public schools, because before then the Christian-supremacist side had things its way enough that it felt rather content. It goes way back to the beginning. When Thomas Jefferson ran for president, he was publicly harangued as a godless man, and when Thomas Paine published The Age of Reason he was publicly condemned and pretty much all his famous friends abndoned him, save Jefferson.

[Kolesar]

24. Featuring temperance and the anti-Romanism/anti-immigrant "causes" eom

[defendandprotect]

81. Church has a lot to lose/gain in war on state . . . $$$$$$$$$$$$

The culture war's been raging since the beginning of this country.

Well, the war on women was a hangover and cemented into the Constitution --

but the state position permitted the Witchburners to hold sway --

It was the final attack in the war on women, depriving them of all rights --

even to children, property, inheritance. Very profitable for patriarchy and church.

Do you remember the Times Magazine cover -- "Is God Dead?" --?

If religion can't attach itself to state somehow -- schools, whatever -- it is delegitimized.

That's why it fights so hard to do so.


But -- in all of these things -- in my opinion, elites move the nuts . . . in their own

interests. T-baggers an excellent example of that. Terry Shaivo. Elites don't have the

numbers to keep themselves in power -- they have to propagandize crazies. Religion is a

prime tool for them in that regard!

Didn't know all of this --

It goes way back to the beginning. When Thomas Jefferson ran for president, he was publicly harangued as a godless man, and when Thomas Paine published The Age of Reason he was publicly condemned and pretty much all his famous friends abndoned him, save Jefferson.

thank you. Essentially, it's easier to teach hatred than it is pass on any other knowledge/

information which requires thought. Offer something which precludes thought -- propaganda --

swiftboating -- and you're all set!!

Love Jefferson's writing on religion/Bible --

Have Paine's "Age of Reason" and have never finished it!

Alas . . .

[Hestia]

119. and the culture wars were going on during the 1930s too, which is why the cross was put up

there's always been a war of them vs us

[AlbertCat]

30. other religious symbols on gravestones in Arlington cemetery.

So.... the Mohave Desert is also a cemetery? :shrug:



How about some art? A nice sculpture! Or plant a tree...or make a bit of landscaped park in the park. There are much better alternatives than this sad thing:

[brendan120678]

56. Isn't the cross a sculpture? (nt)

[defendandprotect]

82. It's a reminder of torture and an instrument intended to create fear . . .

the original was the cross of equality -- all equal --


World sitting on a plus sign --

[anigbrowl]

68. No, the point was that the cemetery is also on public land

I'm not a fan of the Mojave cross, I also think it's ugly. But I don't support its removal or theft just because it's a religious symbol, any more than I support walls being built around churches or synagogues which are visible from the street. My atheist sensibilities are not that delicate.

[regnaD kciN]

73. Careful..

But I don't support its removal or theft just because it's a religious symbol, any more than I support walls being built around churches or synagogues which are visible from the street.

Don't give some of the more-militant atheists here any ideas... :eyes:

[Javaman]

95. yes, because we are soooooo evil.

:eyes:

[Goblinmonger]

110. Jesus on a pogo stick

yes, absolutely, atheists on DU have been calling for walls around religious buildings for years now.

I don't even know what to say that won't get me in trouble.

[John Kerry VonErich]

115. It ain't millitant

It's an act of civil disobediance

[Dogtown]

31. The culture wars have been going on

since the inception of Christianity.

The evangelical movement, which is the strike-arm for imperial Christianity, has targeted us for a theocracy since the beginnings of the movement, circa 1830 or there-abouts. They just have not had a large enough population to affect politics (or garner huge media attention) until the 1980s. (EDIT: Well, they did pretty much push prohibition down our throats, but they didn't name their political groups as Christian then.)

I don't have a pooch in this pit. I doubt seriously if an atheist had anything to do with it. It would be stupid for atheists to do this; the symbol will only be restored and it blackens the eye of atheism.

On the other hand, if an interested party wanted to restore an 80+YO relic *&* create anti-atheist propaganda, it would be a sensible (albeit devious) act.


Atheists are, by the nature of their beliefs, a practical people.

Hell, maybe it was the Wiccans getting revenge for the "Colorado Springs Attack".

:patriot:

[daleo]

42. Christian Temperance Movement. n/t

[Dogtown]

59. Tx, daleo

Stumbled on that. Yes, the temperance movement was the first marketable "product" of the Evangelical Christian Movement.

[regnaD kciN]

74. Paranoid much...?

The evangelical movement, which is the strike-arm for imperial Christianity

Seems you need to study some history. The evangelical movement was organized largely in opposition to mainstream Christianity. Check out fundamentalists even today, and you'll find their contempt for standard Christian denominations.

[Dogtown]

94. Hyperbole

Seems you need to quit being an asshole.

[Tesha]

77. Oh, I have no problem with churches and other religious buildings being visible from the street.

I just think those buildings should pay taxes just like everyone else.

After all, many religions tend to stand against "Special Rights", don't they? ;)

Tesha

[MindPilot]

33. If shows preference to one particular religion.

But for the existence of a religious symbol on the land, the land would not have been sold. You or I would not be able to buy a small patch of land in the middle of a National Park, but an exception was made for the express purpose of maintaining a religious symbol on public land. Buddhists were prohibited from building a mediation area near the cross. That constitutes preferential treatment which to any reasonable observer is an endorsement of religion over non-religion and an endorsement of one particular religion over all others.

[LiberalFighter]

57. +666

[anigbrowl]

72. I have to disagree

I support justice Kennedy's reasoning:

"A Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs," he wrote. "Here, a Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. "It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten."

It is not purely a religious symbol. If it were, then I'd be opposed to its presence there. It's a fact that it was put there primarily as a war memorial, so it has significant meaning beyond the purely religious. Making the patch of land on which it stood private was a sensible compromise that reflected reality and the historical context. To me it's no more of a government establishment of religion than when Obama enters a church with cameras present, as he did a few days back for the memorial service to a civil rights campaigner.

More important is the fact that the thing has been there for >70 years. If they were proposing to build a new monument of this type today, I'd vote against the idea. but once something has been present for several generations without causing problems, it's entitled to some leeway on that basis.

It is indeed true that a Buddhist group asked permission to build a meditation area near the stop in 1999 and was denied. But frankly, and speaking as a Buddhist myself, I consider that the equivalent of trying to start an unnecessary argument and make it into a competitive issue. By contrast, tomorrow (April 12) will see the unveiling of a Buddhist statue in the middle of San Francisco's civic center; it is on temporary display, in combination with an exhibit at a local museum. this hasn't resulted in an outbreak of angst among Christians in the city, who seem perfectly content to view it as an expression of SF's large Asian community, rather than demanding it be accompanied by a cross or whatever. (http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2010/04/14/shanghai-surprise-giant-buddha-sculpture-set-to-debut-on-may-12th-in-civic-center/)

It's better to pick one's battles. A monument erected by the great-grandparents of people alive today isn't a new and present imposition on people's freedom of thought, it's just part of our history. Stealing the thing from its site - presumably due to pique at having lost an argument - is not only criminal, but pathetic.

[Tesha]

78. Only a Christian (or maybe an ancient Roman) would say this.

> It is not purely a religious symbol.

Only a Christian (or maybe an ancient Roman) would say this.
This instrument of torture has become the logo of one particular
strain of religion and nothing else.

But that point of view (that it doesn't *REALLY* mean their
religion) is typical.

Tesha

[anigbrowl]

87. Seeing as I am neither, that doesn't say much for your theory

I'm not aware that symbols are limited to only having a single meaning, regardless of the historical context in which they're placed. seems like a rather narrow viewpoint to me.

[SharonAnn]

98. If Christ died in an electric chair, we'd have symbols of electric chairs everywhere.

[Javaman]

100. I always wondered...

what if jesus tripped and fell off a cliff, still fulfilling his "destiny", what would the symbol have been then? a broken sandal?

I can hear it now, "Jesus tripped and fell for our sins. 3 days later, a little wobbly, got up, dusted himself off and was called home to his father".

[hunter]

103. If Christ was killed by a predator drone...

... would we have symbols of predator drones everywhere?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-1_Predator

[onager]

91. "Present for several generations?"

Well hell, then let's bring back slavery. That was a proud American tradition for 400 years.

In fact, your arguments sound so suspiciously familiar, I think I'll just call you the House Atheist. Make sure you don't upset any believers now, they'll accuse you of getting uppity.

"It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten."

As an atheist veteran (USMC) who has traveled/worked all over the world, I've seen many foreign tributes to American soldiers that are NOT decorated with any religious rigamarole. I've seen them in Korea, France, Germany, Italy, the Czech Republic etc. etc.

Those things always put a lump in my throat. Usually they are small plaques, in the local language and English, that say something like: "Americans died here, thousands of miles from home, for our country. Please remember them."

No need to beat anyone over the head with ostentatious religious hardware. We only seem to do that here in One Nation Under Jebus.

[anigbrowl]

102. This is a specious argument

I've traveled extensively too. I prefer non-sectarian memorials too, not least because I come from a country with a long and bloody history of sectarian warfare. But I've also seen plenty of religiously-decorated monuments which also serve a social purpose. I don't feel beaten over the head by the mere existence of a religious symbol, any more than I than I take seriously the complaints of religious folk who claim to be injured by my lack of belief.

[Goblinmonger]

111. The problem here is that this symbol is on government property

and is a violation of the 1st amendment. We need to fight against the creeping theocracy. How many idiots believe that this was a country founded on christian ideals and that the Founding Fathers were god-fearing Christians. What is a good deal of their ammo? Well, we say "under God" in the pledge. "In God We Trust" is on our money. This is just another thing that people will use to fuel the propaganda.

[boppers]

92. Would a Darth Vader mask been an acceptable sign?

Seeing as how Darth Vader is part of our national religious heritage, and part of our national cathedral, maybe they should replace the cross with a huge Vader mask.

[Zhade]

106. Yeah, but YOU'RE WRONG.

NT!

[Name removed]

53. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tesha]

76. The culture wars have been going on for longer than you remember. (NT)

[Chicago dyke]

89. even 70+ years ago, american service men and women

were of faiths (or not) other than xtianity. some of them would even consider being "honored" by a xtian cross blasphemy. i guess they don't matter as much as the xtian vets, tho, right?

[Zhade]

105. Total fucking bullshit. It's an endorsement, and you know it.

NT!

[Goblinmonger]

109. I hate the Arlington argument. Just HATE it.

At least you got it right as to what is there. Most think that the crosses at Normandy are the ones in Arlington.

Here's the difference. The religious symbols at Arlington are put there AT THE REQUEST OF THE FAMILY OF THE DECEASED. And there are many different religions to choose from. Including a symbol for those that are atheists. Now the one in the desert was put there but a private group and is ONLY CHRISTIAN.

[CreekDog]

39. doesn't make it okay to steal

does it? :shrug:

[Xithras]

4. I hope they find the thief, and imprison him/her/them if politically motivated.

This went to court, wound its way through our court system, and was decided on under our system of laws. While many weren't happy with the outcome, it should NEVER be acceptable for peoplee to take vigilante action to overrule the court and take the law into their own hands. As the ACLU spokesman put it, "We believe in the rule of law and we think the proper way to resolve to any controversy about the cross is through the courts," he said. "We absolutely reject the idea of anybody engaging in theft or vandalism."

The cross will probably just be rebuilt anyway.

[anigbrowl]

9. +1. This is totally counterproductive. nt

[Journeyman]

12. Rebuilt bigger as well, to be less prone to further vandalism. . .

All this will accomplish is to get people riled up coast-to-coast and probably generate a massive influx of money, since its now plainly evident "Christianity itself is under attack!" (or at least, that's how the fundraising appeals will portray it).

[SkyDaddy7]

54. That is exactly why I think...

It was done by Tea Baggers!

[cherokeeprogressive]

36. It will be rebuilt, and guarded by retired Veterans. Someone will get hurt the next time anybody

fucks with it.

Too bad; all this freaking out over a piece of pipe, painted white, standing on top of a rock outcropping next to a road that doesn't see ten cars a day.

[Goblinmonger]

112. Yeah, fighting for the 1st Amendment is just silly.

Silly, silly atheists. We're so damn crazy. Good thing those god-fearing Vets will teach us a lesson in the wrath of god (none of this sissy fucking turn the other cheek Jesus nonsense when it comes to cross protectin') next time we try and steal their religious symbol put on federal land that my taxes pay for. That'll learn us.

[cherokeeprogressive]

113. Too funny.

So you're a warrior for the First Amendment and choose to fight for the right of a few lizards, snakes, and ten cars a day who drive past a pile of rocks in the blazing hot sun to not be exposed to a symbol you find offensive... Good for you.

What you mean "we", kimosabe? Did YOU drive all the way out to the Mojave Desert in defense of those First Amendment rights? This Veteran would bet his last dollar that you wouldn't DREAM of such a sacrifice in your "fight" for the First Amendment. You make me laugh.

Tell me where in the First Amendment you're guaranteed "Freedom FROM religion".

You can go ahead and steal it again as far as I'm concerned (or cheer someone who takes to the fight in your stead). Steal it again and again (or cheer someone who steals it in your stead) if that's what's most important in your daily life; protecting lizards, snakes, coyotes, and a few individuals in cars from the fearsome Latin Cross. Just understand that there will probably be someone there watching, and trying to keep you from stealing it. I won't be there, so you have nothing to fear from me. Other Veterans probably will though. Take up the fight (or cheer those who do) with them, warrior for the First Amendment that you are...

Really? Really? Stealing a five foot tall Latin Cross from a road that sees ten to twenty cars a day in the middle of nowhere is what you call "fighting for the First Amendment"? In a place you'll probably NEVER in your life visit?

Power to ya.

[Goblinmonger]

117. Well

1. I used the collective we as a reflection of the claims that it was atheists that stole this cross. Claims were being made (by you as well) about the "militant atheists" here. So I assumed I was being lumped in with everyone so I could speak for them.

2. What is the level at which we should care, then. Since this one is unimportant, how many cars need to pass before it becomes a problem?

[PassingFair]

6. Shit, I think I know where it is....

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Pi6YkxGBySg/R2sex5jK90I/AAAAAAAAAjQ/asTp0drrs8o/s400/Baby+Jesus+Count+copy.bmp


http://dailyindependent.com/unusual-news/x1192750802/32-baby-Jesus-dolls-found-in-Ill-yard

[bergie321]

10. I will gladly donate

To replace it with a nice, non-religious memorial.

[Yavapai]

37. If they catch the people that removed the cross,

and they get jail time, I will volunteer to serve one week of their time.

Each time I passed that stupid looking eyesore, while living nearby in the desert,
I felt forcefully proselytized by those bat-shit crazy, fundamentalists christians.

[brendan120678]

58. Seeing a cross makes you feel...

"forcefully proselytized" to? Seriously?
If I pass something that I don't want to see, I usually try to ignore it.

[Tansy_Gold]

65. I agree. It's one thing for a cross or other religious symbol to be

on the religion's property -- church, temple, etc. -- or on an individual's private property. But when it's put out there on public property for all to be forced to see, then it's proselytizing that one can't escape.




Tansy Gold, in Pinal

[onpatrol98]

51. Gladly!

I think the thieves that stole it, should be fined and the proceeds of their fines should be used to replace the cross. In addition, instead of jail time, they can do community service by keeping the site clean and safe.

Even in making a statement, theft should be discouraged. It may be my symbol today that is disrespected and scorned, but tomorrow it's certain to be someone else's. Theft is wrong.

[Socal31]

11. Wow this makes us Atheists look bad.

[lefty2000]

14. Yeah!

What took you so long?}(

[mitchum]

29. Atheists are not the ones who fetishize that object...

perhaps it was stolen by one of the Nazarene Death Cultists?

[AlbertCat]

34. Wow this makes us Atheists look bad.

Only if you ASSUME atheists took it.... instead of drunk teenagers.

Oh so.... YOU took it!

[Name removed]

64. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greiner3]

71. Don't look in a mirror then.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Javaman]

101. How very tolerant of you. nt

[Zhade]

107. Yeah, you're totally not a fake or anything.

Hint: real atheists don't capitalize the word.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

13. Why is the National Park Service involved?

If the land is privately owned, why is the National Park Service involved?

Thieves Steal Mojave Desert Memorial Cross in Nighttime Heist

....
The 75-year-old monument was the target of a legal challenge from the ACLU, which charged the cross is a religious symbol that shouldn't be allowed on public land. The U.S. Supreme Court last month refused to order that it be torn down; the land had already been sold and transferred to private owners.

The Liberty Institute is now offering a $25,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction in the case, and the National Park Service has established a tip hotline seeking information leading to the recovery of the cross. Anyone with information is asked to contact the Park Service at [phone].

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[Xithras]

21. The whole story, in a nutshell

In the early 1930's, VFW WWI veterans established the cross as a memorial to their peers who died in the first world war. It was originally accompanied by a plaque, which was stolen long ago. At the time, the land was privately owned ranchland and they had permission to erect it (as I understand it, the owner of the land at the time was a former WWI medic). Later, the land was purchased by the federal government and became part of the East Mojave Scenic Area, run by the BLM (part of the EMSA was purchased by the state of California and was given to the federal government, but I don't know if this was one of those areas). In 1994, Congress made the EMSA into a national park, the Mojave National Preserve. In 2000 an NPS ranger filed a lawsuit, claiming that the presence of the cross on federal land was a violation of the First Amendment. Because the cross predated the governments ownership of the land, and because it was a war memorial, Congress passed a law in 2003 transferring ownership of the rock, cross, and one acre of surrounding land to the VFW, in exchange for the VFW purchasing five additional acres of land for the national park elsewhere. This would result in a net gain of four acres for the park, while giving the VFW ownership of the cross that was originally erected by their forebears in the 1930's.

The lawsuit today is over whether that land exchange is legal. The Supreme Court upheld the legality of the transfer, but as it has not yet been completed, the land still belongs to the NPS right now.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

67. Thanks

to you and mike_c for the answer.

[mike_c]

25. it actually isn't privately owned yet....

The report you cited is in error, I think. The land transfer to the VFW-- which was to be made solely to circumvent the constitutional separation of church and state-- has not yet been completed due to legal challenges and, as far as I know, the VFW's failure to complete the agreement.

edit: Oops, Xithras gave a better answer, above. :toast:

[Tesha]

79. Because the sale of the land was simply a "fig leaf" meant to conceal the truth...

...that this is still a proselytizing religious symbol essentially "on"
public land.

Tesha

[happygoluckytoyou]

15. GOD is soooo going to totally fuck up those crooks---- might as well crash into a bus of nuns ! ! !

[Tempest]

22. If "God" hasn't punished the church pedophiles

I doubt he gives a crap about some symbol.

[happygoluckytoyou]

48. yeah but those are just priests having some boyish fun.... this is CHURCH PROPERTY

[Tempest]

96. It's not church property

It has nothing to do with a church.

[mike_c]

17. THIEVES?!

That xtian death symbol was littering public land. Some good citizen picked up the trash. Good on 'em!

[defendandprotect]

19. Would also be sad to find out this was done by anyone on liberal/atheist side ...

interested though in who might have had reason to do it?

Too bad --

[Tempest]

23. Probably just a bunch of kids for the thrill

Just like when they steal Ronald McDonald and other corporate symbols.

[defendandprotect]

35. Seems unlikely to me . . . this "cross" has been the source of very strong feelings ....

[Tempest]

97. And that's why it's a target for kids and delinquents

Just like a guy in my town who flew a huge flag over his house against zoning laws and had his flag stolen by a group of neighborhood kids. The kids say they got the idea after listening to the news reports about the flag.

[AlbertCat]

27. Maybe they can mix it with tires and golf balls and plug the BP leak.

[CLANG]

32. American ingenuity in ACTION!! Great idea, AlbertCat!

[happygoluckytoyou]

49. throw in a SHAMWOW (as seen on television) and i'd bet this would work

[mitchum]

28. Maybe it was needed for an execution?

[Ian David]

38. I don't condone it, but I understand it. However...

If one were to steal the cross, one should at least replace it with something non-religious to honor our veterans.

Perhaps a stone monolith like a small Washington Monument or the Bunker Hill Memorial.

Something of equal or greater value.

It would still be wrong, but it would be LESS wrong.

[MindPilot]

40. It's NOT a "War Memorial" and it has NOT been there since 1934.

excerpted from the 9th Circuit opinion:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/09/05/0555852.pdf

The current version of the cross was built by Henry Sandoz,
a local resident, sometime in 1998. When NPS investigated
the history of the cross, Sandoz explained that he drilled
holes into Sunrise Rock to bolt the cross in place, making it
difficult to remove. Sandoz did not receive a permit from NPS
to construct the cross.

Following Buono I’s injunction against display of the cross,
the cross has been covered by a plywood box. When uncovered,
the cross is visible from vehicles traveling on Cima
Road, which passes through the Preserve, from a distance of
approximately 100 yards away. No sign indicates that the
cross was or is intended to act as a memorial for war veterans.

III. LITIGATION OVER THE CROSS AND THE CONGRESSIONAL
RESPONSE

The current controversy surrounding the cross surfaced in
1999, when NPS received a request from an individual seeking
to build a “stupa” (a dome-shaped Buddhist shrine) on a
rock outcropping at a trailhead located near the cross. NPS
denied that request, citing 36 C.F.R. § 2.62(a)2 as prohibiting
the installation of a memorial without authorization. A handwritten
note on the denial letter warns that “ny attempt to
erect a stupa will be in violation of Federal Law and subject
you to citation and/or arrest.” The letter also indicates that
“urrently there is a cross on rock outcrop located on
National Park Service lands. . . . It is our intention to have the
cross removed.”

2: The regulation provides that: “The installation of a monument, memorial,
tablet, structure, or other commemorative installation in a park area
without the authorization of the Director is prohibited.” 36 C.F.R.
§ 2.62(a).

[madrchsod]

45. thanks for the truth....

[Igel]

60. Well, some of it, at least.

"Do you swear to tell truth, at least some of the truth, and mostly just the truth?"

"Historic records reflect that a wooden cross was built on
that location as early as 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars
(“VFW”) as a memorial to veterans who died in World War
I. Photographs depict the wooden cross and signs near it stating:
“The Cross, Erected in Memory of the Dead of All
Wars,” and “Erected 1934 by Members of Veterans of
Foregin Wars, Death Valley post 2884.” The wooden
signs are no longer present, and the original wooden cross,
which is no longer standing, has been replaced by private parties
several times since 1934. . ." (ibid.).

It was stolen from time to time. Each time somebody would eventually replace it. The last time it was bolted down to deter thieves (in case you're sensitive to information structure and was wondering why that detail was mentioned).

So the *current* cross wasn't all that old. But a cross has been there most of the time since 1934. In other words, it's not like the tradition dating to 1934 dates to the late '90s, or that having the cross stolen and then replaced alters the debate in anything other than a trivial fashion.

[MindPilot]

69. Current law prohibits the construction of anything in that area.

My house was built in 1927. If an earthquake knocks it down, it will have to be rebuilt to current building codes. Just because something has been there for a long time doesn't mean it can be replaced exactly as it stood before.

The current cross is a new structure, of different material, only replicating the original in bare form, and constructed without even so much as an attempt at obtaining any kind of permission or waiver.

Apparently the law prohibiting building or constructing anything in a National Park Preserve applies to everyone except Christians.

[Xenotime]

41. Hey! Problem solved. Nothing to see here.

[daleo]

43. The cross is still there

But like God, it's invisible. So everyone should be satisfied, believer and non-believer alike.

[madrchsod]

44. delete....

[COLGATE4]

46. As laudable as it may be to want to memorialize deceased

service members, from whatever war, there is a place and a way to do it. Putting up an unabashedly Christian symbol in the middle of a national park is not that way.

[Igel]

66. It's the 'intent' versus 'interpretation' debate.

It happens a lot. A person does/says something, and then what matters--the intent or how what was done or said is interpreted?

Sometimes it's the intent. Usually when it's us or somebody we empathize with.

Sometimes it's the interpretation. Usually when it's them or people we're antagonistic towards.

Personally, I usually go with intent. It may be gauche, some may find it inappropriate, but faulting the intent of those who erected the cross because it doesn't meet with my personal sensibilities clearly says I consider myself far more important than those erecting the cross. Either take into account *my* feelings, or don't do it. "What, you have feelings? I didn't give permission."

Yes, I'm Xian, or at least used to be. Which is one reason I give priority to intent, and try to do so in a non-hypocritical and non-arrogant way.

No, I do not consider crosses Xian. In fact, in those off occasions when the group I met with for services had to use a regular church building, one that had crosses or statues or whatever we had a pile of black cloths to place over them. If for some reason we had to meet at that rock for Day of Atonement services we'd have a giant drop cloth to hide the cross.

[lynne]

50. Theft is theft regardless of political opinion or religion -

- and I hope the thieves are found and prosecuted and the cross recovered and returned.

[superconnected]

93. +1

I bet the same people here liking the symbol being stolen are the same ones who got all upset when the atheist sign was taken a few months ago.

At that time they fell all over themselves on DU blaming Christians - although who took the sign has not been discovered yet.

On this thread, I see no Christians are blaming atheists for it. They don't seem upset, slaming the atheists or proselytizing or anything. It's the atheists doing that to other groups, on DU, and even on this thread... as usual.

[SkyDaddy7]

52. Tea Baggers took it to start fight!!!!

[xocet]

55. Actually...

I believe that this case is more a case of littering that of theft - to state it loosely. Did the original group that put up a cross have permission to construct the cross as a memorial? Do the current "caretakers" have permission to construct a new "memorial" cross?

Seriously, there is a WWI Memorial in Kansas City, MO. It is a true memorial, not just some half-baked scheme that is manifested as set of pipes that have been welded together and bolted to a rock: c.f., http://www.theworldwar.org/s/110/new/index.aspx?sid=110&gid=1&pgid=1113 .

Do people generally have the right to build some junk-like contraption, to name it a memorial and to install it anywhere they would care to install it? If so, let's collect some funds and set off for the Mojave Desert to build some monuments.

[brendan120678]

61. Yes, the original cross (it's already been replaced at least once)...

was put on private land with the permission of the landowner.

[xocet]

63. Thanks...

That is interesting. Could you provide a link please?

[brendan120678]

70. I based that on what was written in post 21 above...

I'll browse some myself to see if it is actually true.

[jmowreader]

75. Probably just punks who took it, but atheists will be blamed

I figure a couple snotnosed punks who don't care about anyone or anything--even themselves--cut down the cross for the hell of it. It's probably in their back yard now.

[cherokeeprogressive]

114. Because punks can be found here in large numbers, right?

[Omaha Steve]

83. Thieves take controversial Mojave Desert cross

Source: AP

By ROBERT JABLON

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Thieves have stolen a cross in the Mojave Desert that was built to honor Americans who died in war, less than two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the religious symbol to remain on federal land.

The 7-foot-high cross was stolen late Sunday or early Monday by thieves who cut the metal bolts that attached the symbol to a rock in the sprawling desert preserve, National Park Service spokeswoman Linda Slater said.

Authorities had no immediate motive for the theft but Slater said possible suspects range from scrap metal scavengers to people "with an interest in the case," Slater said.

The U.S. Justice Department was looking into the case, and a veterans group planned to offer a $25,000 reward to help catch the thieves.

Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20100511/D9FKS96G0.html

[tyne]

84. Disgusting

[virgogal]

85. What a damned shame. I hope they catch the thieves.

[AnOhioan]

86. Good....replace it with a plaque or some other non-religious symbol

[ZombieHorde]

88. Awesome. I hope the replacement cross is stolen as well. nt

[Jennicut]

99. If only someone could have stolen this from Waterbury, CT

Since I was a kid, I have no idea why this has been here. Actually, there have been vandals stealing things from time to time...
The place was like a miniature Bethlehem. In terrible shape now. Just tear it down already.

[Zhade]

104. Gee. What a shame. I sure, uh, hope they get it back soon.

It's not like it was already wrongfully there or anything...

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

108. Police have released a picture of the suspect

See: Weeds Season 3, Episode 13.

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=UFCTKWYK

[itsrobert]

116. A Mega Church probably took it as a fund raiser event

Money has been tight for churches lately. What better way to raise funds would be to say they are fighting "Satan" atheist and they need everyone to give as much as they can.