1. The cross in question was not vandalized. It was simply moved. This was done lovingly and with great care.

2. The cross has been carefully preserved. It has not been destroyed as many have assumed.

3. I am a Veteran.

4. A small non-sectarian monument was brought to place at the site but technical difficulties prevented this from happening at the time the cross was moved to its new location.

5. The cross was erected illegally on public land in 1998 by a private individual named Henry Sandoz. Since then the government has actively worked to promote the continued existence of the cross, even as it excluded other monuments from differing religions. This favoritism and exclusion clearly violates the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

6. Anthony Kennedy desecrated and marginalized the memory and sacrifice of all those non-Christians that died in WWI when he wrote: ‘Here one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles — battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.’ The irony and tragedy of that statement is unique.

7. Justice Kennedy’s words in particular and others like them from the other Justices caused me to act.

8. At the time of its removal there was nothing to identify the cross as a memorial of any kind, and the simple fact of the matter is that the only thing it represented was an oddly placed tribute to Christ. This cross evoked nothing of the sort that Justice Kennedy writes of, it was in the end simply a cross in the desert.

9. Discrimination in any form is intolerable, as is hatred.

10. Discrimination or hatred based upon religion should be despised by all Americans, and offering that this event was caused by hatred or malice is simply ignorance of the actual intent.

11. Despite what many people are saying, this act was definitively not anti-Christian. It was instead anti-discrimination. If this act was anti-Christian, the cross would not have been cared for so reverently. An anti-Christian response would have been to simply destroy the cross and leave the pieces in the desert.

12. We as a nation need to change the dialogue and stop pretending that this is about a war memorial. If it is a memorial, then we need to stop arguing about the cross and instead place a proper memorial on that site, one that respects Christians and non-Christians alike, and one that is actually recognizable as a war memorial.

13. If an appropriate and permanent non-sectarian memorial is placed at the site the cross will be immediately returned to Mr. Sandoz.

14. Alternatively, if a place can be found that memorializes the Christian Veterans of WWI that is not on public land the Cross will promptly be forwarded with care and reverence for installation at the private site.

15. In short this has happened because as Abraham Lincoln said: ‘To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men.’ Perhaps this was an inappropriate form of protest  if so I humbly request your forgiveness and understanding for the actions that I have taken here.

Wow, and here I was ready to denounce the theft as being purely antagonistic.

While I’m still not sure if theft was the correct route, this thief has made a supporter out of me.

LOS ANGELES — Thieves have stolen a cross in the Mojave Desert that honored American war dead, less than two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the religious symbol to remain on federal land.

[…]

 

Late last month, the Supreme Court refused to order the removal of the cross by a 5-4 vote in a controversial case focusing on the separation of church and state.

The cross had been covered with plywood while the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case but vandals tore off the cover over the weekend. Maintenance workers went out to the rock to replace it and discovered the cross was missing, Slater said.

The VFW promised that the memorial will be rebuilt.

Not that I condone it, but I find it rather funny…

The stupid.  It hurts. 

(video via Atheist Media Blog)

Beck makes my head spin.

This video, combined with Beck’s “9/12 Project” only helps solidify the idea that the man should never be taken as anything more than religion dressed in politics.

In case you haven’t seen the “9/12 Project”, you need only count to two on his mission statement:

1. America is Good.

2. I believe in God and He is the center of my life.

Yeah, right.  I’m supposed to think you’ve carefully thought about political issues and base my policy opinions on you, even after “God is the center of your life”?

At first glance, I thought this story was good news: Oklahoma is going to build a Christian prison! About time, I thought, I can think of a few Christians who deserve a few years for faith-abuse. But no…it’s a prison to be administered by Christians to give Christian criminals special privileges. Not quite as appropriate, but more in line with what we’ve gotten used to from our dominant faith tradition.

We’re getting more of the same from Congress, too. Religion is being given permission to intrude on science once again, with the sanctimonious Orrin Hatch (abetted by a pair of Democrats, Kerry and Kennedy) sponsoring a provision in the mangled health care football to allow prayer to count as medicine. It’s specifically a sop to Christian Science, that nonsensical superstition that believes that medicine is a betrayal of faith and that wants to charge sick people money to pray over them…and also get reimbursement from the government. Let the Christian Scientists get a foot in the door and official recognition of mumbling to Jesus as a billable service, and you know the Scientologists and Jehovah’s Witnesses and Amish and Mormons and, of course, the Catholics will be surging through to take advantage of the opportunities….
(via Pharyngula)

Mr. Myers continues with a few examples that just leave me aghast.  Take a read.

There was uproar in Italy today over a ruling by the European court of human rights that the crucifixes that hang in most Italian classrooms are a violation of religious and educational freedoms.

The seven judges, whose decision could prompt a Europe-wide review of the use of religious symbols on public premises, said state schools had to “observe confessional neutrality”.

Except on the far left, the ruling met with condemnation among Italian politicians and was denounced by the Vatican. Silvio Berlusconi’s education minister, Maria Stella Gelmini, said: “No one, not even some ideologically motivated European court, will succeed in rubbing out our identity.”

A Vatican spokesman, Federico Lombardi, said the crucifix was a fundamental sign of the importance of religious values in Italian history and culture, and was a symbol of unity and welcoming for all of humanity, not one of exclusion.
(via RichardDawkins.net)

Again, I’m unsure about the separation of church and state / public endorsement of religion in European nations, but I can only hail this as a good thing.

Just as many will argue that “In God We Trust” is a cultural rather than religious reference, I’m sure there will be some backlash “for tradition’s sake.”

Tradition, however, doesn’t make it right to display a symbolic representation of one particular religion to children in an environment that is supposed to represent objective learning.

Remember the Danish “Muhammad cartoons” that set off riots by offended Muslims more than three years ago? The debate pitted freedom of press and speech against notions of freedom from insult of one’s religion. It rages still – but now in a forum with international legal implications.

For years, Islamic nations have succeeded in passing “blasphemy” resolutions at the United Nations (in the General Assembly and in its human rights body). The measures call on states to limit religiously offensive language or speech. No one wants their beliefs ridiculed, but the freedom to disagree over faith is what allows for the free practice of religion. The resolutions are misguided, but also only symbolic, because they’re nonbinding.

Symbolism no longer satisfies the sponsor of these resolutions – the Organization of the Islamic Council. Under the leadership of Pakistan, the 57-nation OIC wants to give the religious antidefamation idea legal teeth by making it part of an international convention, or legally binding treaty. Members of the UN Human Rights Council are passionately debating that idea in Geneva this week.
(via RichardDawkins.net)

There will be an amazing amount of backlash if this happens to make it through the UN.  Enforcement of sharia law even to this extent is an official validation of misogynism and intolerance. That being said, I absolutely do not think that this will be accepted by the US (it is, after all, a complete perversion of the first amendment).