Overcast ~ 40°F  
Login | Register
Saturday, February 11, 2012

A Cross to Bear or Not

Posted Sunday, October 11, 2009, at 10:38 AM

(Photo)
Small but powerful!
In 1934, war veterans put up a white pipe cross on a rock in a very remote area of the Mojave Desert. Nobody had a problem with it. Well, actually once there was a minority that cried about separation of church and state when the rock & cross became part of a national park but it was saved when the federal government declared it a War Memorial. You would think that would be that. The court had spoken.

For years, a humble couple came to the desert to keep the white cross clean and maintained, in memory of a fallen soldier friend. Out of love and loyalty, even when they moved far away, they continued to make the trip to care for it. Suddenly, they were forced to take boards and box the cross. That simple war memorial to honor their friends was offensive. Offensive???? How does a little white cross in the middle of nowhere suddenly become offensive? How does this situation perfectly symbolize the massive downfall in the moral and spiritual compass of a nation that was founded on religious freedom?

That simple little white cross over the past decade has become the subject of four acts of Congress, two district court rulings, three appellate court actions and last Wednesday, is now being argued before nine Supreme Court judges. This is also a perfect example of the fact that even if a court rules on something and you think that it is over, it ain't ever over! What is the point of having a judge rule on something, anything? If the opposition loses, then just move on to another court system until you find the one that will side with you. How's that for the great American justice system?

That's as helpful as adulterers who keep leaving their therapist to a new therapist, bouncing around until they find the one that will tell them that cheating on your marriage vows isn't wrong. In fact, the adulterer is vindicated in the fact that the cheating was actually good for his marriage. Suddenly, the adulterer has found the right therapist and will no longer have to deal with guilt or admit any wrong-doing. Now that's human nature, not truth. But I think I got off the trail. Back to the desert cross.

I read some interesting comments that I'd like to share. A Catholic judge asked, "The cross doesn't honor non-Christians who fought the war?" And Peter Eliasberg of the ACLU replied, " I believe that's actually correct."

"Where does it say that?" the judge demanded.

"It doesn't say that, but a cross is the predominate symbol of Christianity, and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins."

The judge, Antonin Scalia became angry and declared, "What would you have them erect? Some conglomerate of a cross, a star of David, and you know, a Muslim half-moon and star?" Good response. Can you imagine that simple memorial becoming this huge gnarled piece of white pipe in the form of every religious symbol known to man? I'm sorry but that would just be a mess and frankly, a waste of pipe.

Well, the argument was made that the cross was also a universal symbol used to mark the death of a person. Peter Eliasberg, Jewish did state that you didn't find a cross on a tombstone of a Jew. Correct. So again, we are back to the conglomerate symbol. In order to really honor the war veterans and those who visit the memorial, it should not be a symbol of one religion, right?

Everyone did agree that this waste of the court's time could be solved easily. One judge suggested that the offended individual who started this case could simply not drive near the area in order to prevent his eyes from being offended. There's an idea! And another made a better suggestion. Simply take the cross down, transfer the land to the Veterans of Foreign Wars and then they can put it back up on the newly private land. But no, that is just way too simple and it doesn't satisfy all those groups who want a fight to the death. (but then we would have to argue what memorial would honor them!)

This is no longer a simple matter. Instead, it is a massive decision that could affect war memorials everywhere. This little 8 ft. cross standing 100 yards off a dusty road in the "middle of nowhere" is nothing compared to the 24-foot-tall Cross of Sacrifice in the Arlington National Memorial Cemetery. These groups want to fight and the truth of the matter is far-reaching. This little cross will be the gem for loathing groups like the ACLU, liberal groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Freedom From Religion Foundation to tear down every memorial everywhere that has a religious imagery.

What about the little crosses that are erected on the sides of highways all over the country to mark the spot of a loved ones death due to an accident? Everyone sees the little symbols and I for one, always seem to slow down alittle and pay attention more keenly when I see one. Though I never know who the little cross is a remembrance of, I tend to always take notice and may even say a quick prayer for the unknown's family and ask God for the protection of others on the road. If they have their way, these liberal do-gooders, then we will have liberal volunteers everywhere spending their weekends, riping out little memorials with victorious glee while simultaineously stabbing the hearts of thousands of grieving family and friends.

So watch out people with mangers and crosses in their own front lawns, you're next! Besides, those things that are lit up at night are just a drain of energy, right? I'm sure that will come up as well. Oh my goodness, don't get me started on this. This will not end until they, those spirit-sucking liberal idiots have their way. When they are done, any religious symbol will be outlawed and people will be criminals for wearing a gold cross around their necks. "This is absurd." and the judges even called it "a very technical, boring issue". With that kind of seriousness, I'm sure that we have nothing to worry about. Get out your nativity scenes, your angels and crosses, people. It's almost Christmas or should I say, Winter Solstice? or Yuletide? or Decembermas? or Holiday Celebration? I don't know anymore.I can't keep up. I better just shut up before the political correctness police some knocking on my door. Happy October Day.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Thanks Kim; I thought of this bumper sticker that my daughter has on her car->

-- Posted by sas212 on Sun, Oct 11, 2009, at 11:26 AM

I am an atheist and believe in separation of church and state. But this whole cross issue is ridiculous, in my opinion. I mean it's a war memorial not some religious push to bend politics.

These friggin anti-memorial atheist are giving me a bad name. Let the cross alone and find something that needs to be changed for the betterment of society, not detriment of society.

-- Posted by censored on Sun, Oct 11, 2009, at 12:43 PM

Perhaps the ACLU should pursue making it lawful to honor fallen atheists with unmarked graves?

99% of these guys give the rest a bad name.

-- Posted by junkyard dog on Sun, Oct 11, 2009, at 4:56 PM

Nice post, Censored. I can identify with that. The PEACE SIGN bothers me and always has, but I don't put anybody down for wearing one, or having a bumper sticker. As far as I'm concerned, it's freedom of expression, as the cross is.

-- Posted by bazookaman on Sun, Oct 11, 2009, at 4:58 PM

Thanks guys. It's great to see that everyone, no matter what their beliefs can see this for what it is. A waste of taxpayer money and the Judge's time. However, the one who started this whole stupid case to tear it down is a Catholic veteran. Is that amazing? There are always people in any group that gives that group a bad name. They are the evil on this earth because they cause fear and seperation between people which in turn keeps us from co-existing in harmony. That is real evil in my book.

-- Posted by kimkovac on Sun, Oct 11, 2009, at 11:26 PM

Perhaps, with things coming to light about weapons failure/bad equipment in the military, these people should be fighting to get reliable guns/gear and such for the servicemen. That may, realistically cut down on the need for more war memorials. I am definitely anti-war, but if there's going to be bloodshed in the name of this country we might as well have functioning weapons for the service men.

-- Posted by censored on Mon, Oct 12, 2009, at 5:23 AM

Somebody SOMEWHERE has already got the ball rolling, as our stateside miltary warehouses are being inventoried, and they are resurrecting every old M-14 they can get their hands on, and a few hundred have already been reconditioned and sent out to the field.

For those of you who might not be familiar with the M-14, it replaced the old M-1 Garand rifle in 1957. It was extremely reliable and fired the 308 Winchester cartridge from a 20-round magazine.

I trained with it in 1966, then carried one in 'Nam in 67 & 68, while it was being mistakenly replaced with the M-16,(now called the M-4), that is STILL a piece of garbage today.

Like the enemy's AK-47, the M-14 ALSO was a rifle you could drop in the river, kick around in the mud, wipe it off and it would still serve you faithfully. The government destroyed thousands of them after the war, and GAVE hundreds away to other countries, but still kept a stockpile of them in warehouses, and they're now glad they did.

Our military today in Afghanistan is using them primarily as scoped sniper rifles, to take advantage of the greater range and knockdown of the 308, compared to the M-16's puny .223 round.

To back what Censored said about the deplorable state of our troop's weaponry, some of our guys are even using captured AK-47's.............because they work....even in the sand.

The M-9 pistol is the standard military sidearm today. We know it as the Beretta Model 92. Nowhere NEAR as good as the old Colt 45 it "replaced" in 1983. The 9mm lacks stopping power and the gun itself doesn't do well in "dirty surroundings."

As we speak, there is serious discussion at the Pentagon to going BACK to the 45. Pretty good......only took 'em 26 years to figure it out.

I personally own a 45......and an M-14......and an AK within my collection. Added the three of them shortly after 9/11. And I don't mind putting that on this blog. I had to fill out paperwork on all three, so they're registered. The Feds know, and they're not getting them anyway except from my "cold dead ones."

You can buy AR-15's ("civilian" M-16's, without a full-auto selector), all day long, but I wouldn't give a dollar for a truckload of them. The basic idea behind the M-16 was a lighter-weight gun for the troops to carry, and they could carry MORE of the smaller 223 ammo.

But if the gun JAMS and the 223 can't do the job of a 30-caliber-------especially at distance, what good is it? I wrote DOD (Dept of defense) a couple of decades ago, suggesting that if they HAD to stay with the 223 cartridge (for reasons known only to them), at LEAST get RID of the M-16 and adopt thr Ruger Mini-14...........so they'd at least have a dependable rifle! No reply of course.

Not that I'm some kind of "expert". Far from it, but I HAVE seen the M-16 in combat..........and the 14,..........and the 45...........and the AK-47. I have a "pretty good idea" what works and what DOESN'T.

Vietnam is one of the worst places on earth to fight a war. Monsoon rain, mud, elephant grass, rice paddies, swamp, heat & humidity. Hard on the body.....hard on the guns and sometimes the ammunition.

Can't stop in the middle of a long fight to clean or tear down a jammed weapon, either, especially when the "other guy's" got a Kalishnakov that doesn't know what "quit" means.

The M-14 performs flawlessly. So does the 45 automatic. You virtually can't STOP an AK-47.

The M-16 shoots "when it feels like it." and God help you if it gets the least bit dirty.

It is no different today with the M-4. Our troops have a lot of "gee-whiz" stuff on them now, night sights and infra red, but under all that thousands of dollars of optics, lies an M-16.

Censored and I have our "go-rounds" on this site, but we stand together on this one. I don't like war either....had to fight one, and I'd much rather be out fishing someplace. Gonna have to do it one more time, I FEEL it coming.

But right now, our troops are in harm's way, in what I've called "another Vietnam." Since our politicians back here aren't the ones having to duck and dodge, they at LEAST need to be asking our field commanders............"What do you need?"..............and then GET IT TO THEM!

They need to get rid of the "tinkertoys" and put REAL GUNS in their hands...............USE what Boeing built back in 1955 (and we're still flying them). Kick butt and get OUT!

We're losing people we don't need to be losing, and for no sound reasons at all.

POST SCRIPT:.............my son flew up from Dallas a few months ago, and after an afternoon of shooting up at Cinder Butte, we were sitting here cleaning the guns we had taken out, and Danny says "Y'know Dad, when the s--t hits the fan HERE, those federal boys are gonna be getting out of their trucks with M-16's."

"I sure HOPE so", says I........as I put my M-14 back togehter.

-- Posted by bazookaman on Mon, Oct 12, 2009, at 9:07 AM

I am a firm atheist and I have no issue with people erecting crosses to memorialize something. They are harmless. The cross at Table Rock is harmless. If you dont like it, dont look at it. Tolerance runs both ways.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Mon, Oct 12, 2009, at 2:45 PM

Absolutely...............if you don't like Hannity, change the channel. Not a difficult decision.

-- Posted by bazookaman on Mon, Oct 12, 2009, at 3:30 PM

The Table Rock controversy of a few years ago was started by some attorney from either Oregon or Illinois. I know plenty of non-Christians who opposed disturbing the cross. Some people have to rock the boat even if the sailing is smooth.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Mon, Oct 12, 2009, at 7:35 PM

Wasn't there some lawyer from the midwest that stirred up a bunch of crap in Boise about the Ten Commandments tablet somewhere?

Why do we listen to out-of-staters anyway?

-- Posted by bazookaman on Mon, Oct 12, 2009, at 7:52 PM

It is unfortunate but these people who stir it up have a goal and they know in order to set a precedent, they have to start small. Tha's why that Majave Cross has become such a treasure to them. It makes me see red when these people do that. Hey SAS, I loved the bumper sticker.

-- Posted by kimkovac on Mon, Oct 12, 2009, at 9:20 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Kim's Comments
Kim Kovac
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
I've lived in Mtn Home for over 20 years. I love my city and my country. Since I am a writer, my decision to blog here seemed appropriate. I enjoy acting so I've been blessed with the opportunity to work on some independent films and with Prairie Dog Productions and Bogus Creek Ranch. I hope that something I have to write about has some value for others or just amuses someone.
Hot topics
Mayfield? Here's my thought.
(5 ~ 10:39 AM, Aug 18)

Watch myi48 short film
(4 ~ 9:17 PM, Jul 30)

FINALLY USAMA BIN LADEN DEAD
(47 ~ 2:59 AM, Jun 16)

i48 Film Festival
(1 ~ 4:21 PM, Jun 11)

Pakistan, the Lying Nation
(23 ~ 11:01 AM, May 12)