Not Christian? Screw you!

Originally posted on 08/14/06

That seems to be the message that the president is trying to say when he signed into law the transfer of the public land upon which sits a giant cross in San Diego from the state to the control of the department of defense. He did this to circumvent the decision of a federal court that ordered the cross removed from public land.

Here is the history of the Mt Soledad Easter Cross from the wikipedia article:

Three different shaped Christian crosses have been constructed since 1913 on City government property at the apex of the Mt. Soledad Natural Park in the Village of La Jolla.

The original cross on Mt. Soledad was erected in 1913 by private citizens of La Jolla and Pacific Beach, but was stolen in 1923 and later in the year of 1923 the wooden cross was affixed back in the ground on Mt. Soledad Natural Park only to be burned down by the Ku Klux Klan.

The second cross was erected in 1934 by a private group of Protestant Christians from La Jolla and Pacific Beach. This sturdier, stucco-over-wood frame cross was blown down by blustery winds in 1952.

The third and current 29-feet tall cross on top of a 14-feet tall stepped platform was installed in 1954. It still stands today. A windstorm damaged one of the flimsy constructed cross members in 1955 and the concrete structure had to be repaired.

A wind storm, huh? Isn't that one of those "act of god" sort of things? Oops, I forgot, that only counts when it is convenient, right?

So 17 years ago an atheist gentleman sued to have the cross removed from public lands due to its violating the separation of church and state. Eventually the federal courts agreed with him. Since all the other problems have been solved, Bush decided that it was a good idea to tell everyone who wasn't Christian to go fuck themselves.

The argument is that the cross is a memorial for veterans because, as we know, all people who have ever served this country are Christians. Since only Christians serve in the military and only Christians pay taxes it would be just a fine idea to keep this religious symbol on public lands, supported by public tax dollars. Seems perfectly logical to me.

The effect of the transfer is that the cross will no longer fall under the jurisdiction of the state constitution and will now fall under the jurisdiction of the federal constitution. But wait, you say, isn't the separation of church and state guaranteed in the federal constitution? The answer, of course, is that the constitution guarantees what the Supreme Court says it guarantees regardless of what is actually written down. The administration, having been stacking the Supreme Court for some time now, is reasonably sure that they will say what they want them to, just like all "patriotic" Americans should.

It has been argued that the constitution does not actually contain the phrase "separation of church and state" and therefore it is not guaranteed by it. This is a false argument. Separation of church and state, while not actually spelled out, is very much implied by the first amendment. Their argument breaks down when you consider that no where in the constitution does the phrase "fair trial" appear. It states that you have the right to a speedy trial, but nowhere does it say "fair". It does, however, imply it. Lets have a little consistence here, shall we? If you are going to argue against separation on those grounds, you must also argue against a fair trial on the same grounds. So I say we immediately falsely accuse all these bastards that are trying so hard to set up their own theocracy of any capital crime, set up a kangaroo court, find them guilty and sentence them to be ass-shagged to death by syphilitic rhinos. Who's with me on this one?!? And as they scream, bemoaning their rapidly enlarging colons, we need merely remind them that we were using their standard for what is and what isn't guaranteed.

This is a quote from the article from a catholic school teacher's aide:

"We vote for things to become law and then we have people that fight it," she said. "If they don't want to look at the cross then don't come up here."

This is profoundly stupid. If you don't like it don't look. I would agree with her if the cross was on private land but it's not. The people of California still have to pay for it regardless of whether or not they look at it. And now anyone who is paying federal taxes will be paying for it. I wonder if this lady's opinion of “if you don't like it don't look" would be the same if we were talking about something that didn't suite her beliefs so well. Would she be as supportive of, say, a 29 foot pentagram perched upon the mountain? I highly doubt it, but, who knows.

One gentleman asks if we remove the cross then wouldn't we have to remove all the crosses from Arlington National Cemetery? This is a false comparison. Any religious symbol in Arlington is a monument to the person directly beneath it who was whatever faith the monument is from. It is not a generalization for a whole state, now country, of individuals. If there is a cross over a grave in Arlington it is because the occupant of said grave was Christian. Last time I checked, not everyone in the United States is Christian.

We have freedom some in this country. Some beliefs are granted the freedom and respect they deserve while some just have to bend over and take it and hope they use lube.

This is the article that got me going:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Rant Over... For Now