Cross Fever Spreading-Theocracy Gaining Ground
July 28th, 2006 | by Ken Grandlund |Just two days after the U.S. House of Representatives decided that a religious icon in San Diego needed federal protection, California’s two ‘liberal Democratic’ senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, appear to have joined ranks with the bible thumpers as a bill heads to the Senate in defense of the Mt. Soledad Cross.
Excuse me, Senator’s…which party of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” don’t you understand? Or have you just decided that pandering to the religious majority is your best bet of holding on to your seats of power a little longer?
Right wing news sources seem to be agog in glee with the recent developments, but the fact that the federal government is about to get into the business of taking over public lands with religious icons is another sign that America is on the path to theocracy…that very form of government the Neo-Con agenda has been decrying in the Middle East. The only difference is the brand of religion being espoused.
What makes matters even more interesting is the fact that both of the Distinguished Women from California are Jewish. Not that that really matters except for the fact that it seems despite widespread public distrust of Republicans and their corporate-religious form of government, more and more Democrats are pretending to be Republican-lite instead of standing up for classic American principals.
What next friends? Will the government start using eminent domain to shut down mosques, temples, or Buddhist monastaries and transforming them into Christian shrines? It used to be scoffed when the words ‘theocracy’ and ‘America’ were uttered in the same breath. Now, with two Democratic senators from one of the country’s largest liberal states joining hands with the religious right, I’m not so sure you can dismiss the thought so easily.
[tag]Mt. Soledad Cross, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Theocracy, Religious Right[/tag]
16 Responses to “Cross Fever Spreading-Theocracy Gaining Ground”
By Kevin W. on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
Excuse me, ken…which part of “It’s a war memorial” don’t you understand? Are you suggesting that we get rid of all religious symbols? Should we change all the headstones in Arlington? A lot of them are crosses. Should we change the names of San Diego, Los Angeles, San Franciso, Santa Barbara and a lot of other cities? Those names have Christian connotations. If you’re going to remove the Soledad cross, than don’t be selective. You’re going to have to get rid of a lot more stuff, and I don’t think the kin of the people buried in Arlington or the citizens of those cities are going to be too happy when you and your raving band of Christian-haters come knocking and trying to take away tradition.
By ken grandlund on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
Gee Kevin, you must have been listening to Bill O’Reilly the other day. Study the history of the Mt. Soledad memorial without one eye closed and it is quite apparent that the cross was originally built as an Easter memorial where Easter services were held for about 50 years before any such ‘war memorial’ designations were made. In fact, the whole ‘war memorial’ designation only came about after the initial lawsuits were filed and the courts ruled against the city based on California Constitutional law.
Secondly, city names are not chosen, maintained, or funded with federal tax payer dollars, nort are city names matters of constitutional law or impact the Bill of Rights. No on einvolved in the suit is saying that historical place names need be changed to assure the separation of church and state, nor am I. That is a bullshit argument with no bearing on the issue of government and religion being mutually exclusive.
Third, the U.S. Government does not select what religious symbols are placed on soldiers tombstones. That is a family decision, plain and simple. Sure, the federal government does maintain Arlington with tax dollars, but to equate an actual war memorial, which Arlington Cemetary has been since the late 1800’s to Mt. Soledad is another bullshit argument. Read the history of Mt. Soledad and see if you can understand the difference.
I fully recognize that Christianity has played a large (and often brutal) role in the settling of America. I have no problem with people worshipping as they see fit, so long as they respect all others’ rights to do the same. I have a big problem with public tax funds being used to advance one religion over another.
By Kevin W. on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
The fact that the cross is there does not contribute to the furthering of Christianity. It does not infringe upon anyone’s religious freedom. Congress is well within its rights to fund a WAR MEMORIAL. It doesn’t matter what it was in the past. It’s a WAR MEMORIAL now.
By ken grandlund on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
Kevin- You make a fine Republican. Glad to see that critical thinking and reading comprehension don’t get in the way of your version of the truth. And are you saying that a giant concrete cross is now not to be considered a religious icon, the purpose of which is to further Christianity?
Calling Mt. Soledad an historical war memorial is a lot like saying the Tooth Fairy is real. And using BIG BOLD LETTERS doesn’t add any credence to the matter at all.
By Kevin W. on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
Forget it. I’m not going to waste any more time with you and you addled-brain Christian-hating military-slandering filthmongering. Go to hell.
By ken grandlund on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
Yeah Kevin, facts, critical thinking, and reading comprehension are a real drag sometimes. I mean, if you actually tried any of those things out, you might have to examine some of the bullshit you’ve been spoon fed all your 16 years.
And of course, calling me names and damning me goes a long way towards refuting the accuracy of my assertions, especially with regards to the actual events concerning the history of said “War Memorial.”
And please look up the definition of ’slandering’ sometime. You may find that one must make some explicit derogatory remarks at a specific person or entity that have no basis in fact. Not once in this article do I mention the military, nor in my comments for that matter. Point in fact- war memorial and military are not the same.
By steve on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
Hey I am with Kevin on this one. If you don’t like this cross on the war memorial Ken, then fight to take the crosses off this one when you are done!!
Ken you said:
” Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, appear to have joined ranks with the bible thumpers as a bill heads to the Senate in defense of the Mt. Soledad Cross.”
What is the difference of the name calling you are scolding Kevin on and the term “bible-thumper” you mention in this sentence? Please, elaborate with some critical thinking. Describe what a “bible-thumper” is supposed to mean if it is not derogatory.
Nice to see the ACLU’s leading apologist, Barbara Boxer, is on this one. Hmmm… How conflicting eh? I wonder who “donated” to whom, after all it is an ELECTION YEAR FOR HER!!!
By ken grandlund on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
Steve- Of course, I’m not surprised by your stance. Again, as with Kevin, you reference Arlington as an equitable situation when it is not. But to humor you both, please note the number of religious symbols Arlington approves of and will pay for for approved burials. Note the Muslim and Athiest symbols included. Hard to see how this example, even if it were analogous, refutes the situation at Mt. Soledad.
As for your other point, the only difference between my ‘bible thumper’ reference is that I am not directly or implicitly attacking Kevin with my comment, but if he (or you) feel that you fit that description who am I to tell you not to be offended. Helps maintain that whole “persecuted” mentality. But in a broader sense it is derogatory, you are right. But the connotation is one that is quickly recognizable, and thus makes good writing.
By steve on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
Ken:
Yeah but… you wanna destroy one religious symbol. If it were the Muslim symbol or Hindu symbol, you wouldn’t complain for shit. And don’t deny that, you know I am right. No one would say a word if it were a giant Buddha that people wanted brought. The fact that it happens to be a Christian symbol is why everyone wants it down, period.
In order to prove this:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
You have to prove that the government, by keeping the monument up is imposing Christianity on you and everyone else.
Did you know that the state and federal government set aside land for Indians for religious purposes? Reservations are places where Indians live yes, but they also perform religious burials and ceremonies as a part of tribal history. Why aren’t you equally opposed to this.
And where is your post opposing this action? Oh look who has a confliciting quote from 2004 and her actions regarding:
“As someone who strongly believes in the separation of church and state, I believe that federal funding should not be used for the promotion of religion. This is not what the legislation does,” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)”
D’oh!! And she is a liberal…
Oh look at this one Ken, looks as if this thing (federal funding for religious stuff) happens all the time:
“In addition, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) revised its regulations to allow federal money to pay for construction or repair of buildings that are used both for worship and social services. The regulations forbid taxpayer money to be used for a congregation’s main place of worship, but HUD grants can be used to pay for the portion of a building that is used to deliver publicly-funded social services, such as drug counseling, job training or feeding programs.”
By ken grandlund on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
Wrong Steve, I don’t want to destroy any particular religious symbol. I just don’t want my tax dollars used to support a particular symbol. I would feel the same regardless of which religious icon were being singled out for tax support. I don’t care if you believe this or not, but it is the truth. Show me where the U.S. government is trying, through congressional action, to adopt and maintain a land with a solitary religious symbol that is not a cross and I will rail against that too.
The first amendment does not require me to prove an imposition other than that the government should not show preference to one religion over another. It has nothing to do with how I or you feel, but rather with government offering official cover to a particular religion.
Indian reservation issues are a far cry from this matter too, but nice try. The federal government does not pay to maintain native religious symbols. Having spent the last two days on an Indian reservation, having studied Indian history for over a decade, and having almost 1/4 Indian heritage, you really don’t want to go there with me on this. You clearly have no clue about what you are talking about. Reservation land was set aside as a feeble attempt to account for over a hundred years of genocide. The tribes were usually given the least desirable land anywhere and then ignored. And the feds have consistently and continually screwed the Indians out of any real funding at all.
As for your article regarding fed funding of Catholic missions, I oppose that too. Not only does the fact that most of these buildings are still used actively for religious services and are wholly owned by the Catholic church, but that entity is among the richest in the world and can wella fford to maintain their own properties. However, if the missions were completely unused for current religious services and were instead totally used for educational purposes such as a museum, I would not have such a problem. especially is they were aprt of the national parks system or national historical society.
Your Boxer quote does not surprise me either, as I am beginning to view her more and more as just another typical political shill who has few convictions aside from keeping her Senate seat. Such a shame too.
Finally, when did HUD revise their regulations? Since GWB came to pwoer? If so, no surprise here, as it only offers more proof of my hypothesis that the neo-cons and religious right are seeking to theocratize this country. Still, multi-purpose buildings that are federally owned (read public property) are a far sight different than a building or public park whose main goal has historically been to promote a particular religious dogma over another. Mt. Soledad does not meet that criteria.
Sorry Steve, try again.
By Jersey McJones on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
Kevin, there are non-Christians buried in that field, ya’ know. Just the same, I don’t care about that cross. Crosses on hills are a part of the Latin American experience! Everyone who supports that cross must then acknowledge that it is a symbol of our Latin heritage in that part of the country and that, like the statue of liberty, is like a sign for all the Latinos to read: Please Come and Join America!
Thanks, Bible thumping morons!
JMJ
By liberal vet on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
Lively debate, I like it. Ken is absolutely correct, I not being nearly as eloquent as Ken would simply state “STOP FUCKING USING MY TAX MONEY TO FUND ANY RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS”. WHAT PART OF THAT DON’T YOU TWO NEOCON RELIGIOUS FANATIC PENCIL PUSHING INTRUSIVE GODBOTS NOT GET! Stop foisting your views on atheists like myself. And by the way the above is an ad hominem attack. Ken is too much of a gentleman, I am not. LV
By Kevin W. on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
Yes, you’re right. Ken is a gentleman. You, on the other hand, are a jackass.
By liberal vet on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
Bite me pimple puss.
By ann on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
Heard an excellent Bob Dylan pastiche today (called something along the lines of ”These days God’s on everyone’s side”) on BBC Radio 4’s The Now Show. As I’m not a techie, I’ve no idea how to isolate it from the rest of the show, so here’s the link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/nowshow.shtml
Scroll to about 3/4 of the way through if you don’t want to hear the rest of the show.
By steve on Jul 28, 2006 | Reply
I know you are but what am I