to this jewish atheist, "is this giant cross secular?" is a pretty easy to answer.


the best argument the "sure, it's secular, mm hmm" people have is that for some time, christians have put crosses on the graves of non-christians in callous disregard for the religion (or non-religion) of the deceased or the wishes of their families.

so, having done that enough, they feel it's ok to pretend that it's normal and proper.


next, they'll say jesus is a secular figure because, hey, jesus is everywhere and he loves all of us, right?

so instead of trying to defend it on its merits, they'll often just say that it's been there so long it has lost the religious meaning, blah blah blah. Well part of the reason it went up and stayed up for so long was that religious minorities (particularly non-believers) knew they would have risked repercussions if they complained.

I doubt anyone is against honoring war dead. I doubt anyone is against honoring Christian war dead with a cross. The problem is honoring them with a cross on public land. The best solution would just be to relocate it to private property.

so somehow the christian symbol gets to double as secular but the jewish symbol is purely religious.


you're right, and what i'm guessing will happen is that the courts will say it's not ok, then the cross and the land it exactly sits on (plus maybe an inch or two of grass around it) will be sold to some private interest, and nothing will really change but it will all be legal....

This vote will tell us who should not be a judge in any capacity.

It's their symbol, so it is innocuous in their own eyes. They simply don't see the issue. They've become blind to the symbolism that cross represents. It's just another part of their lives.

They don't understand why it bothers others. They think nobody should be bothered by it, so what's the big deal?

Sadly, that argument has worked many times. Christians are in the majority, when it comes to religion, so they think they can force their symbolism onto the rest of us.

We see the same reaction for other questionable things, like the religious slogan on our money, or having a paid chaplain for Congress. "What's the big deal?" It's a big deal because these things enable much bigger violations. Idiots looking to post the 10 commandments in a school will say, "Our national motto is 'In God We Trust' - so why can't I do this?" Etc.

The campaign to insert Christianity into our government has been going on since the 1950s. First, they got "under god" into the Pledge of Allegiance. Then they got "in God we trust" on our currency. Those successes have emboldened the fundamentalist Christians into attempting to do more and more at every opportunity. More liberal Christians go along with it because, "What harm can that do?"

When I was a teenager, in the early 1960s, I saw the impact of religion in an odd place. The Roman Catholic Church had successfully convinced the State of California that condoms were an evil thing and should be tightly controlled. At that time, every package of even a single condom had printed on it, "FOR PREVENTION OF DISEASE ONLY!" They could be purchased only at the pharmacy counter, and only by people over the age of 21. Why was this? Because the RCC opposed contraception. That was the only reason. Cross the border into Arizona, and there were condom machines in every gas station restroom.

Abortion? Same-sex marriage? Marriages performed by non-religious officiants? Organized Christians officially fought against all those things. And they won most of the time for years and years, because "Why does that even matter?" was the question other Christians thoughtlessly asked.

And it continues today in backwards states. The push is still on to return to religious rule of everyday life. If we turn away and lose our focus, we lose yet another battle with the religionists.

I encountered them when the topic of the cross over La Jolla came up several years back.

It's amazing how blind people can be, based on their religious beliefs. They simply cannot see past the "Why does it matter?" question.

held that a city's display of a creche as part of a Christmas display had a secular purpose because Christmas is a national holiday.

which it clearly is, I would vote that it is an unconstitutional infringement and should be removed.

But, I am not on the SCOTUS.