Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 04-28-2003, 04:51 PM

Morons.org has decided that protesting a cross on public land is moronic:

http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?se...&id=3168#board

The Ventura County case is described here :

Quote:

The illuminated cross stands almost 30 feet at the summit of city-owned Grant Park in the rugged hills that emerge from the Pacific Ocean between Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. There is some dispute about the history of crosses at the site, but the current one was erected in 1913, city officials said.

Legend has it that the first cross on the site was erected by the Rev. Junipero Serra, the founder of the original Spanish missions in California, in 1782. Whatever the origin, at least three crosses have been on the site during the past three centuries, according to historians quoted in local news reports.

The California hills are dotted with such crosses, from San Diego to San Francisco, many on state and federal land. In recent years, however, federal courts have forced the removal of crosses in San Francisco and San Diego. And the National Park Service is appealing a federal district court decision banning a cross in the sprawling Mojave National Preserve, in the desert between Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

Non-Christians "feel marginalized by the government," said lawyer Vince Chhabria, who is representing the Ventura residents in the battle against the hilltop cross. By allowing the cross to remain, and maintaining the lighting on it, the city government "is imposing majority religious views on them."

In light of recent federal court decisions, city officials are expressing a cautious willingness to cooperate with Mr. Chhabria and his clients.

Ab_Normal · 04-29-2003, 08:53 AM

[nitpick]One editorial poster at morons.org has decided that protesting a cross on public land is moronic. If you read the thread, spatula (the owner/administrator/grand high poobah of morons.org) thinks the cross should go.[/nitpick]

I would recommend wading through the thread; it's a fascinating (and well-mannered, at least at the point where I last skimmed it) discussion of the issue. Disclaimer: I spend a lot of time at morons.org!

Technogeek · 04-29-2003, 12:18 PM

So do I - heck, I'm a writer there!

I pointed out that the big trouble with the cross falls under the Lemon Test. For those of you unfamiliar, it was established in the Supreme Court Case Lemon v. Kurtzman, and outlines the following three requirements to ensure that a violation of the Establishment Clause did not occur:
[list=1][*]It must have a secular legislative purpose.[*]Its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion[*]It must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."[/list=1]

#1 is easy - it's a memorial to the person who founded the city. The cross was selected because he was a missionary.
#2 is also passes, as stated for the reasons in #1.
#3 is probably the trickiest, but I personally wouldn't think that a cross would foster such an entanglement.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-29-2003, 08:53 AM	#2
Ab_Normal Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 2,842	[nitpick]One editorial poster at morons.org has decided that protesting a cross on public land is moronic. If you read the thread, spatula (the owner/administrator/grand high poobah of morons.org) thinks the cross should go.[/nitpick] I would recommend wading through the thread; it's a fascinating (and well-mannered, at least at the point where I last skimmed it) discussion of the issue. Disclaimer: I spend a lot of time at morons.org!

04-29-2003, 12:18 PM	#3
Technogeek Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Grand Rapids, MI Posts: 47	So do I - heck, I'm a writer there! I pointed out that the big trouble with the cross falls under the Lemon Test. For those of you unfamiliar, it was established in the Supreme Court Case Lemon v. Kurtzman, and outlines the following three requirements to ensure that a violation of the Establishment Clause did not occur: [list=1][]It must have a secular legislative purpose.[]Its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion[*]It must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."[/list=1] #1 is easy - it's a memorial to the person who founded the city. The cross was selected because he was a missionary. #2 is also passes, as stated for the reasons in #1. #3 is probably the trickiest, but I personally wouldn't think that a cross would foster such an entanglement.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.