It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California memorial cross found unconstitutional

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Maybe the feds in California should invest in a big jar of urine for that cross they were so thoughtlessly stuck with....


I'm not against preserving the older Christian memorials/crosses - - created during a time when Artistry/Craftsmanship was really an art.

But - I do find it a "slap in the face" to non-Christian soldiers to erect a cross on any public memorial.

I agree the cross should come down in this case.




posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I would concede your point (and share your opinion in this case), except for the fact that I think the cross was there BEFORE the war memorial.

One early posters in this thread has a quote (which I cannot seem to trace) that the original cross was erected before the first world war began, in 1913. In which case, it seems that a "war memorial" was built around the cross, rather than vice versa.

Do I have that right???

Edit to add: the article says the area was only designated a war memorial in the 1980's. Prior to that, it had been a spot for Easter services. So I think the cross was there BEFORE it became 'sacred' to anyone's memory...
edit on 7-1-2011 by dr_strangecraft because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
reply to post by Annee
 


I would concede your point (and share your opinion in this case), except for the fact that I think the cross was there BEFORE the war memorial.


Agreed - - it is a "sticky" one. But the cross is not a very artistic piece of work.

Since I am 64 - - I do come from an era of public Christian dominance in the area I grew up. Public schools had Christmas. If you were Jewish or something else - - you just kept your mouth shut.

It wasn't right then and it is not right now - - pre war or not.

Its a case by case basis. I just happen to agree with this one.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I will certainly agree that it's bad art.

I too hail from the era of "go along to get along" when it comes to majority pep rallies.

Personally, I cannot help but wonder whether the land was given to the government precisely so that there would be a legal excuse to remove the cross from prominent public display; i.e., the local government didn't want the bad p.r. of taking down a cross that had been erected by the ancestors, so they let the feds take the heat for it...since we all know that the federal government is forced to follow the constitution....

What I object to the is the mealy-mouthed quality of such a ruse, if ruse it is.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
What I object to the is the mealy-mouthed quality of such a ruse, if ruse it is.


Are you reading that into it?

Some church organization or corporation could have bought the property I assume.

Any thing is possible. I'm not going to read any conspiracy into this.

We are not lacking in Christian churches or crosses - - or memorials in this country.
edit on 7-1-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join